If consumers can afford something, won't they typically go out of their way to own it?
No. Experience has shown that consumers usually won't go out of their way to do anything; they'll pick the quickest, cheapest way to get what they want.
It's ambiguous how much piracy is hurting them here, but if you go overseas to places where the vast majority of movies/software/music is pirated, you can definitely see what the MPAA/Microsoft/RIAA is afraid of happening here.
Gee, poor them. Maybe the MPAA needs to realize that, to the kids that're doing a large part of the downloading and spreading - high-school and college aged - $200/day is an ungodly amount of money. They're never going to feel sorry for someone that's getting paid even at that level.
And the economy sucks so bad even after they graduate they're going to find that $200/day is STILL an ungodly amount of money by their standards.
Holmes was mostly mental, but he could definitely rely on brute strength when necessary; he was portrayed as physically powerful. In fact, he didn't die in the waterfall precisely because he was able to use his physical abilities not to.
Use your own name, coward, if you want to debate me. MacGyver was a physical hero as well as a mental one; it was essentially an action-adventure series. The purely intellectual hero a la the Doctor is very hard to find.
People have rarely appreciated the intellectual hero. Isaac Asimov had a great essay on the subject of pulp heroes, where he pointed out the hero was usually physically powerful but mentally dense, while the villain was usually brilliant but physically weak, and the stories typically ended with the musclebound idiot beating up on the brilliant weakling. He thought it was an ugly idea, and arose from an intense anti-intellectualism in this country based on agrarian philosophies about where the worth of a man lay. I don't think the current time is much worse than the past in that regard; it's probably a little better now than it used to be.
You can't go on what you read in the newspaper. First of all, "filing suit" is easy; you just go to the courthouse and submit a complaint. If it really is baseless the party being sued can move to have the complaint thrown out, and if there really is no basis it usually happens. I'm not sure why there's this huge sentiment that every frivolous lawsuit evolves into a long, expensive, case. They rarely do. Judges do exactly what you accuse them of not doing, i.e. they acts as gatekeepers to prevent weak cases from getting through. Sure, some slip through, but that's the price you pay for making the justice system accessible.
Do you have any concrete, detailed examples of a case that should have gotten thrown out but wasn't? Or is this just another case of "the media sort of provides a few vague examples of weird-sounding cases so I'm going to passionately adopt a stance on the issue even though I'm not sure how the whole system works"?
The only problem with that it assumes any case that loses is without merit. Only a tiny fraction of disputes ever make it to court; the ones that do are usually there because the issues aren't cut-and-dried. Frivolous lawsuits are almost invariably dismissed very early on.
So what you'd be basically doing in a lot of cases is punishing people who acted in good faith, thought they had a reasonable case, but failed to prove it.
Just as a minor point, shouldn't Microsoft also be named in the lawsuit, since the GTA games came out for Windows, and are coming out for X-Box in a matter of months?
Well, unless they had the PC version as well, or an x-box and a time machine I don't see why. This isn't aimed at companies that distributed the game in general; it's companies that provided the game in this specific case.
That's something slightly different. The way it was used in the first place meant that the RIAA would be the only one who could grant immunity. What you're talking about is whether the immunity that the RIAA grants would apply to other parties. Let's say Artist A and the RIAA both had the ability to grant amnesty, and the contract between them agreed that if one party granted amnesty the other party would respect it. Therefore, the right to grant amnesty wouldn't be exclusive to the RIAA--but it would still protect anyone they granted amnesty to.
It's entirely possible. I'd have to look at the RIAA bylaws and any contracts that were signed. And whether their ability is "exclusive" is irrelevant; I think if you strike that from the sentence it reads closer to what you were trying to say.
Kazaa probably had an actual contract with her. And even if it was implied, Kazaa has no right to grant the copying of copyrighted material, so it's irrelevant. As for someone else suing them, it's doubtful as the RIAA was basically formed to handle that aspect of the business. Plus that would imply that the RIAA shared the identity of the copier with the artist or label or whoever, so the signer of the affidavit might have grounds for damages against the RIAA,showing that they negotiated in bad faith.
A fair amount, actually. Especially if they're public (like this one) and include documentation (i.e. a signed declaration). Any competent lawyer could probably get the charges dismissed by showing that there was an implied contract between the RIAA and the repenter.
All you have to do is replace fuel rods once in a while and you get emission-free, clean power.
But..huh? wait...
You said:
There is the issue of disposing nuclear waste, but I'm confident that issue will also be dealt with as technology advances.
Err, so the presence of dangerous waste means it's NOT clean. I mean, "clean energy source" means the production of the energy creates some form of pollution. Erk. Do you work in marketing?
Of course it's blue; "sky" refers to everything in the atmosphere, including the sunlight shining through it.
Re:Another (not so rosy) view of Heinlein
on
New Heinlein Novel
·
· Score: 1
Interesting, never seen that essay before. It seems to agree with some of the other stuff I've seen written about Heinlein; Arthur C. Clarke apparently was "cut off" like that, because he supposedly had the audacity to criticize Reagan's missile defense system. Isaac Asimov admits he never really cared for Heinlein, though they were always on civil, if not friendly terms, and in one of his autobiographies he mentions Heinlein's tendency to fly into a rage if anyone dared disagree with him about anything. And of course, there's the whole Alexei Panshin thing.
I personally find his opinions and his methods of droning on about them in his books objectionable enough that I can't really read any of his stuff anymore, even the early works. His best stuff is his early short stories I think, and most of his later books are held in lower regard, even by his fans.
Slashdot Mirror
You get slapped a lot in real life, don't you?
If consumers can afford something, won't they typically go out of their way to own it?
No. Experience has shown that consumers usually won't go out of their way to do anything; they'll pick the quickest, cheapest way to get what they want.
It's ambiguous how much piracy is hurting them here, but if you go overseas to places where the vast majority of movies/software/music is pirated, you can definitely see what the MPAA/Microsoft/RIAA is afraid of happening here.
Gee, poor them. Maybe the MPAA needs to realize that, to the kids that're doing a large part of the downloading and spreading - high-school and college aged - $200/day is an ungodly amount of money. They're never going to feel sorry for someone that's getting paid even at that level.
And the economy sucks so bad even after they graduate they're going to find that $200/day is STILL an ungodly amount of money by their standards.
So you felt better when the RIAA started to sue people?
Holmes was mostly mental, but he could definitely rely on brute strength when necessary; he was portrayed as physically powerful. In fact, he didn't die in the waterfall precisely because he was able to use his physical abilities not to.
Use your own name, coward, if you want to debate me. MacGyver was a physical hero as well as a mental one; it was essentially an action-adventure series. The purely intellectual hero a la the Doctor is very hard to find.
People have rarely appreciated the intellectual hero. Isaac Asimov had a great essay on the subject of pulp heroes, where he pointed out the hero was usually physically powerful but mentally dense, while the villain was usually brilliant but physically weak, and the stories typically ended with the musclebound idiot beating up on the brilliant weakling. He thought it was an ugly idea, and arose from an intense anti-intellectualism in this country based on agrarian philosophies about where the worth of a man lay. I don't think the current time is much worse than the past in that regard; it's probably a little better now than it used to be.
It's OUR FUCKING MONEY
It's our deficit, too.
You can't go on what you read in the newspaper. First of all, "filing suit" is easy; you just go to the courthouse and submit a complaint. If it really is baseless the party being sued can move to have the complaint thrown out, and if there really is no basis it usually happens. I'm not sure why there's this huge sentiment that every frivolous lawsuit evolves into a long, expensive, case. They rarely do. Judges do exactly what you accuse them of not doing, i.e. they acts as gatekeepers to prevent weak cases from getting through. Sure, some slip through, but that's the price you pay for making the justice system accessible.
Do you have any concrete, detailed examples of a case that should have gotten thrown out but wasn't? Or is this just another case of "the media sort of provides a few vague examples of weird-sounding cases so I'm going to passionately adopt a stance on the issue even though I'm not sure how the whole system works"?
I got a letter a while back saying that for every issue of Red Herring I was still to receive, I'd get 1.9 (!) copies of Business 2.0 instead.
Too bad every other issue is missing the last 10% of the pages.
The only problem with that it assumes any case that loses is without merit. Only a tiny fraction of disputes ever make it to court; the ones that do are usually there because the issues aren't cut-and-dried. Frivolous lawsuits are almost invariably dismissed very early on.
So what you'd be basically doing in a lot of cases is punishing people who acted in good faith, thought they had a reasonable case, but failed to prove it.
Its like if Nostradamus had a powerful cult that policed our planet ensuring everything happened as he predicted...
Mind your tongue! Revealing the secrets of the Brotherhood is a hazardous thing to do...
Just as a minor point, shouldn't Microsoft also be named in the lawsuit, since the GTA games came out for Windows, and are coming out for X-Box in a matter of months?
Well, unless they had the PC version as well, or an x-box and a time machine I don't see why. This isn't aimed at companies that distributed the game in general; it's companies that provided the game in this specific case.
"What?! They voted against something I want? They're all a bunch of slaves to special interest groups!"
"What?! They voted for something I want? They're only doing it to get re-elected!"
Isn't that why CD-R packs labelled "music" are more expensive than ones labelled "data"?
That's something slightly different. The way it was used in the first place meant that the RIAA would be the only one who could grant immunity. What you're talking about is whether the immunity that the RIAA grants would apply to other parties. Let's say Artist A and the RIAA both had the ability to grant amnesty, and the contract between them agreed that if one party granted amnesty the other party would respect it. Therefore, the right to grant amnesty wouldn't be exclusive to the RIAA--but it would still protect anyone they granted amnesty to.
It's entirely possible. I'd have to look at the RIAA bylaws and any contracts that were signed. And whether their ability is "exclusive" is irrelevant; I think if you strike that from the sentence it reads closer to what you were trying to say.
Kazaa probably had an actual contract with her. And even if it was implied, Kazaa has no right to grant the copying of copyrighted material, so it's irrelevant. As for someone else suing them, it's doubtful as the RIAA was basically formed to handle that aspect of the business. Plus that would imply that the RIAA shared the identity of the copier with the artist or label or whoever, so the signer of the affidavit might have grounds for damages against the RIAA,showing that they negotiated in bad faith.
What are assurances worth? legally?
A fair amount, actually. Especially if they're public (like this one) and include documentation (i.e. a signed declaration). Any competent lawyer could probably get the charges dismissed by showing that there was an implied contract between the RIAA and the repenter.
The Matrix Reloaded introduced us to virtual cinema
So virtual cinema means shoddy writing, uneven pacing, and lousy acting?
All you have to do is replace fuel rods once in a while and you get emission-free, clean power.
But..huh? wait...
You said: There is the issue of disposing nuclear waste, but I'm confident that issue will also be dealt with as technology advances.
Err, so the presence of dangerous waste means it's NOT clean. I mean, "clean energy source" means the production of the energy creates some form of pollution. Erk. Do you work in marketing?
Of course it's blue; "sky" refers to everything in the atmosphere, including the sunlight shining through it.
Interesting, never seen that essay before. It seems to agree with some of the other stuff I've seen written about Heinlein; Arthur C. Clarke apparently was "cut off" like that, because he supposedly had the audacity to criticize Reagan's missile defense system. Isaac Asimov admits he never really cared for Heinlein, though they were always on civil, if not friendly terms, and in one of his autobiographies he mentions Heinlein's tendency to fly into a rage if anyone dared disagree with him about anything. And of course, there's the whole Alexei Panshin thing.
I personally find his opinions and his methods of droning on about them in his books objectionable enough that I can't really read any of his stuff anymore, even the early works. His best stuff is his early short stories I think, and most of his later books are held in lower regard, even by his fans.
I'm sure their link with far right-wing politicians is a complete coincidence, too...
For a while the company WAS the industry. Not too many computer manufacturing companies that have been around long enough to show these statistics.