>>>This reminds me of the Fullscreen / Widescreen discs in some early DVD releases. Made a great 2 for 1 deal, sell off or give away whichever format you don't watch to whoever does. >>>
FALSE.
Please don't spread misinformation. I have several of these fullscreen/widescreen DVDs, and they did NOT include two discs. Instead they include ONE disc that is double-sided and therefore impossible to do what you claim (sell one disc; keep the other).
As for the music loudness problem, there is an extremely easy fix:
Most studios already release an CD/album version (typically 5 minutes) and a radio/single version(typically 4 minutes) of their songs so all they need to do is release the CD with proper mixing, while the radio version is volume-compressed to make FM studios happy.
My brother earns $11/hour. If he can survive on that amount of money, so too can the Harley workers. The fact they keep demanding $25/hour instead of negotiating a paycut to save their job is because they are being greedy.
And that greed's going to lead to the factory closing-down and moving. It simply doesn't pay to be stubborn.
>>>Inflation happens even without printing of money.
False. If the paper is tied to gold, such that one greenback == 1 dollar of gold, then there's no inflation (aka devaluation) of the paper. It becomes fixed to a real commodity and remains relatively stable such that 300 dollars in 2009 could buy a suit, and approximately 300 dollars in 2100 would still be able to buy a suit.
Inflation, aka devaluation of paper is "mandatory" is a myth perpetrated by the Fed. It doesn't have to be that way. In fact if you compared one greenback in 1800 to a greenback in 1920, you'd find they are essentially equal in value. No devaluation.
IMHO Nixon made a mistake when he took paper off the gold standard and allowed paper to float freely. We've experienced nothing but rampant inflation since then. i.e. $1 in 1971 is only worth 18 cents today (in terms of buying power) and dropping rapidly.
>>>Most people live relatively paycheck to paycheck
Yes but what about those who DO save money (like me). The Federal Reserve is de-valuing my paper investment that's stored in the bank. Yeah I get interest of about 1% but it doesn't offset the constant 4% devaluation.
The EPA uses grams/mile, so it doesn't matter if you're dirving a 1.0 liter insight or a 4.0 liter camaro. The car is either under the 0.1 g/mile of NOx to qualify as a LEV or it isn't.
So going back to my previous example:
The 57mpg SULEV insight is cleaner than my 70mpg LEV insight, because the SULEV puts-out about ten times less grams per mile of NOx and CO pollution. It was designed to burn more fuel, but to do it much more cleanly.
Maybe we should eliminate ALL negative feedback - for both buyers and sellers. Just have nothing but mandatory positives for everyone. But you wouldn't support that would you? No because you like to screw it to the sellers, because you HATE sellers. You love ruining sellers reputation because it makes you feel like a Big Bad Buyer screwing it to the man. You probably laughed when you you heard my stories about the woman who stole eighty dollars from me, or the guy who couldn't read the word "VHS" and left my an undeserved neg, or the paypal claim to try to get a refund.
Your a Buyer on a mission to destroy seller's lives by negging them as often as possible. You LOVWE neggging them which is why you would Never support the idea of removing negatives from ALL feedback. You like the power it gives you to Blackmail a seller into giving your partial refund or free items or other perks.
You love negging sellers too much.
BTW I found your ebay ID. I'm looking forward to buying from you, then negging you, and then hearing you still claim that not being able to neg back me, the buyer, is a-okay. I'm sure you'll change your story fast and wish buyer negatives were allowed again.
QED you think it's okay for buyers to steal from sellers, and for Ebay to do nothing to protect them, and no way to protect themselves or each other. You worhtless piece of ihst. You're probably a scamming buyer yourself. I'm going to track down your selling ID and make your life miserable as I neg you again and again.
THEN I want you to come back here and tell me you still believe it's okay for sellers to have Zero defense and Zero method of negging buyers to warn other sellers.
I don't appreciate your tone towards these people (calling them "incompetent" et cetera). If I recall correctly the team was led by a law school professor, who I presume has the same intelligence as the professors who taught you & took you from being a know-nothing student to a professional. In my humble opinion it isn't proper to be insulting a lawschool professor.
Yes they lost the case, but do you really think you would have been able to win? If yes, then maybe you should have stepped forward to do the job, rather than sit on your ass and be the lawyerly-equivalent of a movie critic or Monday-morning quarterback.
>>>(a) The whole "life sentence" concept isn't valid. By that reasoning, poor people should just commit massive financial damages against people, because they wouldn't be subject to paying those damages. >>>
Damages you incur yourself like setting-fire to a neighbor's car (and later must pay back) is not the same as a legislative fine of $150,000 per song. That's Congress issuing punishment, and as such is limited by the Constitution. It's akin to telling someone they owe $150,000 for every mile over the speed limit, and IMHO should be considered "cruel and unusual".
One more try - All I meant was that I'd rather spend the $250 on myself, like buying a new flat-screen television, or an HD Radio for my car, or hiring a hooker.
And yes I see your point too, that I might get targeted by RIAA even if I'm innocent, but I think I'd win the case when I walk-in with my 1000-CD and 500-singles collection and ask the question, "What stolen songs? I've done my share to support the artists."
I am not persuaded by ad hominem (against the name) arguments. They are a logical fallacy which prove nothing.
Reason Magazine's studies are just as valid as any study Obama might quote. If you don't think the $11/hour welfare earnings is accurate, than get the study and demonstrate where it is flawed. Alternatively quote a different study from a different think tank which estimates how many dollars/hour welfare benefits are worth.
Either of those would be a valid argument. The ad hominem attack is not.
>>>can you imagine the mess you would be in right now if you didn't have welfare?
I'd be just fine. I spend about $1000 a month on rent plus electricity plus food, and I had $220,000 saved at layoff, so I could sustain myself for about 220 months, aka eighteen years with no assistance whatsoever.
>>>Welfare is making your life...possible.
False. See above. I had enough sense to save my money and be prepared for hard times, so don't use me as your excuse to justify the BS that is welfare. The grandparent poster was correct that a welfare state encourages sloth and dependence and "white trash" families.
>>>So you give one (1) anecdotal example that says "welfare state does not create the problem"
Someone doesn't know how to read. I'm sitting here on my ass all day, getting paid $14/hour, over the course of 1.5 years. So yeah I'd say welfare DOES create the problem of encouraging slothful citizens. Why work when you can just collect money for doing nothing?
And you say it's just one example, but if you drive through any American city you can observe thousands such examples where people collect government money for doing nothing all day.
>>>perhaps by tariffs for imported manufactured goods.
Doing that is what extended a minor market crash in 1929 into a decade-long depression. Tariffs kill trade and destroy an economy. A wiser course is for Americans to simply take a paycut. For example - a local Harley factory is leaving because they can no longer afford to pay their workers $25/hour. If the workers were willing to take a cut downto, say, $10/hour than they could keep their jobs.
But since the workers are being stubborn, they will lose their jobs as the factory moves to someplace cheap like Alabama or Arkansas, where workers are willing to take $10/hour.
>>>You'll find that America's standard of living will drop, while other countries will see theirs rise, until some sort of equilibrium is reached. >>>
Isn't that essentially what I said with the recommendation that American workers drop their wages from $30/hour to $7/hour? If they want the factories to stay here then that's what they have to be willing to negotiate.
And as for living on that money, I could do it. But then I also don't have non-necessities like cable TV, a $60/month cellphone, or $50/month internet.
>>>>> Teeh Congress is following the old "throwaway" paradigm rather than the greener "reuse" philosophy. Bad, bad, bad policy.
>>This is only speculation, but I would bet that cars are the most reused and recycled consumer product in the US
I think I'm going to stop talking, because people clearly are not listening. When I say Congress crushes every nut, bolt, radiator, et cetera, that's what I mean. The entire car has to be trashed according to this Cash for Clunkers program. Bloody stupid.
>>>>> If I had an old 17mpg pickup I would be allowed to get a 19mpg SUV and get the free congressional money,
>> Wrong! The new car has to get at least 10 mpg more... Try looking it up first! [cars.gov]
IMHO you owe me an apology because you're wrong, plus you were rude about it. I wish I knew how to moderate, because I'd remove a couple points from your "informative" post that's completely UNinformative.
>>>I'd say you missed a lot. First of all, ever since I can remember, and right up until this second, businesses are allowed to write off any car they buy as an expense. So congratulations on having fully swallowed the anti-Bush Kool-Ade. >>>
Dear Sir (and I use that term loosely since most gentlemen are not rude):
First-off I'm a Jeffersonian-Republican (i.e. support minimal government) and hardly anti-bush. Not that I loved the guy, but he was still better than Obama who spends money like a teenage with a credit card, Al B Gore, or Slick Willy "it's fun to get sex from employees" Clinton. I hate big-government with a passion and Bush promised smaller government (and laid-out a budget with a surplus from 2001 to 2011), until the 9/11 attack derailed that plan.
Second, you may believe you know everything under the sun about SUV deductions, but you don't, so let me quote a relevant article about the SUV boondoggle - "It's a highly stimulating provision in the Bush administration's economic stimulus program. The loophole would allow someone who buys an $102,581 Hummer H1 for business purposes to deduct $87,135 from his taxes immediately. Seriously. Good deal if you can get it." - That was a CBS News articles. Here's another article from ABC - http://abcnews.go.com/technology/hybrid/Story?id=97505&page=1
To be fair, the Bush and Republican Congress closed this loophole within a year, but it still allowed a lot of people to buy expensive SUVs for cheap, and paid by us the taxpayers.
>>>>> - 1987 Plymouth's are banned from sale except as a older used car
>>the last time I seen a 1987 Plymouth for sale as anything OTHER than a used car was 1987
Sorry I tried to squeeze a bunch of information into a one-line summary, so let me spell it out more clearly - If my 1987 Plymouth Caravelle were "revived" today with the exact-same specs, and marketed as a Brand-New Plymouth, it would be banned from sale by the EPA because it's doesn't meet the minimum LEV-II standard. It's too dirty.
- When my grandfather was a young lad (1920s) he could buy a suit with quarter-ounce of gold, or about 5 dollars paper money.
- Now today that same suit still costs about quarter-ounce of gold, but 300 dollars paper money.
Notice how the gold kept its value, but the paper did not. By constantly printing more-and-more money the Federal Reserve is erasing people's wealth. If for example my grandfather had decided not to buy a suit, but instead kept his 5 dollar greenback under a mattress, he'd have lost personal wealth (he couldn't even buy a tshirt today, much less a suit). It would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Every year Americans' saved wealth declines by about 4% (and rising), thanks to the Fed's constant printing of paper, and devaluation of existing paper. Today you have $100,000. Next year it's value will be equivalent to just $96,000. And so on.
>>>Still, they don't seem to be having trouble getting takers - so perhaps this criticism is unwarranted.
That doesn't mean it's a good program. If Congress said, "We'll give you $4500 to dump your fuel-efficient hybrids and buy an American SUV," most people would flock to that deal too ("yay free handouts!"). That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Just like the music at the top of the Billboard charts - sure it's popular with the public, but is it good? Ehhh, not really.
>>>>> The net effect on making air more breathable will be unmeasurable.
>>That's not true. 12% is measurable.
Ahh you made a common mistake that trading-up from a 17mpg SUV to a 19mpg SUV will be cleaner, but that's not necessarily true. For example my second car is a Honda Insight that is a 70mpg LEV, but even with that high MPG it's still not as clean as the 57mpg SULEV variant. The second version has fewer HC, NOx, PM, and CO pollutants.
Also I was talking about actual air measurements. Will smog levels in California drop because of this program? Not by any amount detectable with an instrument. I could stand there all day with my EPA-supplied instruments and not see any difference from 2008 levels.
>>>The use of the papers did not affect the market value of the works, therefore favoring the use.
So if I write a script for Star Trek, to be submitted whenever it returns to television, the copy up on Turnitin won't affect my sale? Yeah right. Why should Paramount pay me when they can just grab a free copy off that website. Or worse, pay turnitin.com for the script rights instead of paying me, the original author.
Maybe today's management is honest, but companies tend to go downhill and it wouldn't surprise me if some future CEO at turnitin.com decides to start selling the papers, scripts, stories, and other creative output in his possession.
>>> she reserves the right to upload it as she sees fit. The student agrees to the contract
This contract would be declared "void" in a court-of-law, just the same as various provisions in the Paypal User Agreement were declared void a few years ago. Why? Because contracts can not be used to sign-away rights protected by Federal Consumer Protection laws. In other words, a company (college) can not force a customer (student) to give-up his rights or privileges as a precondition of service,
Nor can a company add conditions AFTER the money has already been paid, which would be the case if a customer does not see the prof's syllabus until the first day. That's called bait-and-switch.
Well of course it's wrong. Suppose that one of those students if the next Roddenberry (Star Trek), JMS (Babylon 5), or Joss Whedon (Buffy/Angel/Firefly) and said student created a great story for his class. Why should this student have to give-up his copyrights to some asshole company?
This is just another way that corporations seek to steal ideas, stories, songs from artisans by takng-over control of the copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>This reminds me of the Fullscreen / Widescreen discs in some early DVD releases. Made a great 2 for 1 deal, sell off or give away whichever format you don't watch to whoever does.
>>>
FALSE.
Please don't spread misinformation. I have several of these fullscreen/widescreen DVDs, and they did NOT include two discs. Instead they include ONE disc that is double-sided and therefore impossible to do what you claim (sell one disc; keep the other).
As for the music loudness problem, there is an extremely easy fix:
Most studios already release an CD/album version (typically 5 minutes) and a radio/single version(typically 4 minutes) of their songs so all they need to do is release the CD with proper mixing, while the radio version is volume-compressed to make FM studios happy.
My brother earns $11/hour. If he can survive on that amount of money, so too can the Harley workers. The fact they keep demanding $25/hour instead of negotiating a paycut to save their job is because they are being greedy.
And that greed's going to lead to the factory closing-down and moving. It simply doesn't pay to be stubborn.
>>>Inflation happens even without printing of money.
False. If the paper is tied to gold, such that one greenback == 1 dollar of gold, then there's no inflation (aka devaluation) of the paper. It becomes fixed to a real commodity and remains relatively stable such that 300 dollars in 2009 could buy a suit, and approximately 300 dollars in 2100 would still be able to buy a suit.
Inflation, aka devaluation of paper is "mandatory" is a myth perpetrated by the Fed. It doesn't have to be that way. In fact if you compared one greenback in 1800 to a greenback in 1920, you'd find they are essentially equal in value. No devaluation.
IMHO Nixon made a mistake when he took paper off the gold standard and allowed paper to float freely. We've experienced nothing but rampant inflation since then. i.e. $1 in 1971 is only worth 18 cents today (in terms of buying power) and dropping rapidly.
>>>Most people live relatively paycheck to paycheck
Yes but what about those who DO save money (like me). The Federal Reserve is de-valuing my paper investment that's stored in the bank. Yeah I get interest of about 1% but it doesn't offset the constant 4% devaluation.
The EPA uses grams/mile, so it doesn't matter if you're dirving a 1.0 liter insight or a 4.0 liter camaro. The car is either under the 0.1 g/mile of NOx to qualify as a LEV or it isn't.
So going back to my previous example:
The 57mpg SULEV insight is cleaner than my 70mpg LEV insight, because the SULEV puts-out about ten times less grams per mile of NOx and CO pollution. It was designed to burn more fuel, but to do it much more cleanly.
P.S..
Maybe we should eliminate ALL negative feedback - for both buyers and sellers. Just have nothing but mandatory positives for everyone. But you wouldn't support that would you? No because you like to screw it to the sellers, because you HATE sellers. You love ruining sellers reputation because it makes you feel like a Big Bad Buyer screwing it to the man. You probably laughed when you you heard my stories about the woman who stole eighty dollars from me, or the guy who couldn't read the word "VHS" and left my an undeserved neg, or the paypal claim to try to get a refund.
Your a Buyer on a mission to destroy seller's lives by negging them as often as possible. You LOVWE neggging them which is why you would Never support the idea of removing negatives from ALL feedback. You like the power it gives you to Blackmail a seller into giving your partial refund or free items or other perks.
You love negging sellers too much.
BTW I found your ebay ID. I'm looking forward to buying from you, then negging you, and then hearing you still claim that not being able to neg back me, the buyer, is a-okay. I'm sure you'll change your story fast and wish buyer negatives were allowed again.
QED you think it's okay for buyers to steal from sellers, and for Ebay to do nothing to protect them, and no way to protect themselves or each other. You worhtless piece of ihst. You're probably a scamming buyer yourself. I'm going to track down your selling ID and make your life miserable as I neg you again and again.
THEN I want you to come back here and tell me you still believe it's okay for sellers to have Zero defense and Zero method of negging buyers to warn other sellers.
P.S.
Dear NewYorkCountryLawyer:
I don't appreciate your tone towards these people (calling them "incompetent" et cetera). If I recall correctly the team was led by a law school professor, who I presume has the same intelligence as the professors who taught you & took you from being a know-nothing student to a professional. In my humble opinion it isn't proper to be insulting a lawschool professor.
Yes they lost the case, but do you really think you would have been able to win? If yes, then maybe you should have stepped forward to do the job, rather than sit on your ass and be the lawyerly-equivalent of a movie critic or Monday-morning quarterback.
>>>(a) The whole "life sentence" concept isn't valid. By that reasoning, poor people should just commit massive financial damages against people, because they wouldn't be subject to paying those damages.
>>>
Damages you incur yourself like setting-fire to a neighbor's car (and later must pay back) is not the same as a legislative fine of $150,000 per song. That's Congress issuing punishment, and as such is limited by the Constitution. It's akin to telling someone they owe $150,000 for every mile over the speed limit, and IMHO should be considered "cruel and unusual".
(sigh)
One more try - All I meant was that I'd rather spend the $250 on myself, like buying a new flat-screen television, or an HD Radio for my car, or hiring a hooker.
And yes I see your point too, that I might get targeted by RIAA even if I'm innocent, but I think I'd win the case when I walk-in with my 1000-CD and 500-singles collection and ask the question, "What stolen songs? I've done my share to support the artists."
I am not persuaded by ad hominem (against the name) arguments. They are a logical fallacy which prove nothing.
Reason Magazine's studies are just as valid as any study Obama might quote. If you don't think the $11/hour welfare earnings is accurate, than get the study and demonstrate where it is flawed. Alternatively quote a different study from a different think tank which estimates how many dollars/hour welfare benefits are worth.
Either of those would be a valid argument. The ad hominem attack is not.
>>>can you imagine the mess you would be in right now if you didn't have welfare?
I'd be just fine. I spend about $1000 a month on rent plus electricity plus food, and I had $220,000 saved at layoff, so I could sustain myself for about 220 months, aka eighteen years with no assistance whatsoever.
>>>Welfare is making your life...possible.
False. See above. I had enough sense to save my money and be prepared for hard times, so don't use me as your excuse to justify the BS that is welfare. The grandparent poster was correct that a welfare state encourages sloth and dependence and "white trash" families.
>>>So you give one (1) anecdotal example that says "welfare state does not create the problem"
Someone doesn't know how to read. I'm sitting here on my ass all day, getting paid $14/hour, over the course of 1.5 years. So yeah I'd say welfare DOES create the problem of encouraging slothful citizens. Why work when you can just collect money for doing nothing?
And you say it's just one example, but if you drive through any American city you can observe thousands such examples where people collect government money for doing nothing all day.
>>>perhaps by tariffs for imported manufactured goods.
Doing that is what extended a minor market crash in 1929 into a decade-long depression. Tariffs kill trade and destroy an economy. A wiser course is for Americans to simply take a paycut. For example - a local Harley factory is leaving because they can no longer afford to pay their workers $25/hour. If the workers were willing to take a cut downto, say, $10/hour than they could keep their jobs.
But since the workers are being stubborn, they will lose their jobs as the factory moves to someplace cheap like Alabama or Arkansas, where workers are willing to take $10/hour.
It usually doesn't pay to be greedy.
>>>You'll find that America's standard of living will drop, while other countries will see theirs rise, until some sort of equilibrium is reached.
>>>
Isn't that essentially what I said with the recommendation that American workers drop their wages from $30/hour to $7/hour? If they want the factories to stay here then that's what they have to be willing to negotiate.
And as for living on that money, I could do it. But then I also don't have non-necessities like cable TV, a $60/month cellphone, or $50/month internet.
>>>>> Teeh Congress is following the old "throwaway" paradigm rather than the greener "reuse" philosophy. Bad, bad, bad policy.
>>This is only speculation, but I would bet that cars are the most reused and recycled consumer product in the US
I think I'm going to stop talking, because people clearly are not listening. When I say Congress crushes every nut, bolt, radiator, et cetera, that's what I mean. The entire car has to be trashed according to this Cash for Clunkers program. Bloody stupid.
>>>>> If I had an old 17mpg pickup I would be allowed to get a 19mpg SUV and get the free congressional money,
>> Wrong! The new car has to get at least 10 mpg more... Try looking it up first! [cars.gov]
IMHO you owe me an apology because you're wrong, plus you were rude about it.
I wish I knew how to moderate, because I'd remove a couple points
from your "informative" post that's completely UNinformative.
>>>I'd say you missed a lot. First of all, ever since I can remember, and right up until this second, businesses are allowed to write off any car they buy as an expense. So congratulations on having fully swallowed the anti-Bush Kool-Ade.
>>>
Dear Sir (and I use that term loosely since most gentlemen are not rude):
First-off I'm a Jeffersonian-Republican (i.e. support minimal government) and hardly anti-bush. Not that I loved the guy, but he was still better than Obama who spends money like a teenage with a credit card, Al B Gore, or Slick Willy "it's fun to get sex from employees" Clinton. I hate big-government with a passion and Bush promised smaller government (and laid-out a budget with a surplus from 2001 to 2011), until the 9/11 attack derailed that plan.
Second, you may believe you know everything under the sun about SUV deductions, but you don't, so let me quote a relevant article about the SUV boondoggle - "It's a highly stimulating provision in the Bush administration's economic stimulus program. The loophole would allow someone who buys an $102,581 Hummer H1 for business purposes to deduct $87,135 from his taxes immediately. Seriously. Good deal if you can get it." - That was a CBS News articles. Here's another article from ABC - http://abcnews.go.com/technology/hybrid/Story?id=97505&page=1
To be fair, the Bush and Republican Congress closed this loophole within a year, but it still allowed a lot of people to buy expensive SUVs for cheap, and paid by us the taxpayers.
>>>>> - 1987 Plymouth's are banned from sale except as a older used car
>>the last time I seen a 1987 Plymouth for sale as anything OTHER than a used car was 1987
Sorry I tried to squeeze a bunch of information into a one-line summary, so let me spell it out more clearly - If my 1987 Plymouth Caravelle were "revived" today with the exact-same specs, and marketed as a Brand-New Plymouth, it would be banned from sale by the EPA because it's doesn't meet the minimum LEV-II standard. It's too dirty.
Hopefully that clears-up what I meant.
And now in more practical terms:
- When my grandfather was a young lad (1920s) he could buy a suit with quarter-ounce of gold, or about 5 dollars paper money.
- Now today that same suit still costs about quarter-ounce of gold, but 300 dollars paper money.
Notice how the gold kept its value, but the paper did not. By constantly printing more-and-more money the Federal Reserve is erasing people's wealth. If for example my grandfather had decided not to buy a suit, but instead kept his 5 dollar greenback under a mattress, he'd have lost personal wealth (he couldn't even buy a tshirt today, much less a suit). It would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Every year Americans' saved wealth declines by about 4% (and rising), thanks to the Fed's constant printing of paper, and devaluation of existing paper. Today you have $100,000. Next year it's value will be equivalent to just $96,000. And so on.
>>>Still, they don't seem to be having trouble getting takers - so perhaps this criticism is unwarranted.
That doesn't mean it's a good program. If Congress said, "We'll give you $4500 to dump your fuel-efficient hybrids and buy an American SUV," most people would flock to that deal too ("yay free handouts!"). That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Just like the music at the top of the Billboard charts - sure it's popular with the public, but is it good? Ehhh, not really.
>>>>> The net effect on making air more breathable will be unmeasurable.
>>That's not true. 12% is measurable.
Ahh you made a common mistake that trading-up from a 17mpg SUV to a 19mpg SUV will be cleaner, but that's not necessarily true. For example my second car is a Honda Insight that is a 70mpg LEV, but even with that high MPG it's still not as clean as the 57mpg SULEV variant. The second version has fewer HC, NOx, PM, and CO pollutants.
Also I was talking about actual air measurements. Will smog levels in California drop because of this program? Not by any amount detectable with an instrument. I could stand there all day with my EPA-supplied instruments and not see any difference from 2008 levels.
>>>The use of the papers did not affect the market value of the works, therefore favoring the use.
So if I write a script for Star Trek, to be submitted whenever it returns to television, the copy up on Turnitin won't affect my sale? Yeah right. Why should Paramount pay me when they can just grab a free copy off that website. Or worse, pay turnitin.com for the script rights instead of paying me, the original author.
Maybe today's management is honest, but companies tend to go downhill and it wouldn't surprise me if some future CEO at turnitin.com decides to start selling the papers, scripts, stories, and other creative output in his possession.
>>> she reserves the right to upload it as she sees fit. The student agrees to the contract
This contract would be declared "void" in a court-of-law, just the same as various provisions in the Paypal User Agreement were declared void a few years ago. Why? Because contracts can not be used to sign-away rights protected by Federal Consumer Protection laws. In other words, a company (college) can not force a customer (student) to give-up his rights or privileges as a precondition of service,
Nor can a company add conditions AFTER the money has already been paid, which would be the case if a customer does not see the prof's syllabus until the first day. That's called bait-and-switch.
Well of course it's wrong. Suppose that one of those students if the next Roddenberry (Star Trek), JMS (Babylon 5), or Joss Whedon (Buffy/Angel/Firefly) and said student created a great story for his class. Why should this student have to give-up his copyrights to some asshole company?
This is just another way that corporations seek to steal ideas, stories, songs from artisans by takng-over control of the copyrights.