This of course is not much comfort if you are on the losing end of one these court cases
Then maybe Jammie should have just have been an adult and admitted her guilt and taken the plea bargain rather than trying to use outrageous defenses (how can someone hack you through a wireless device when you don't even use a wireless device?) and racking up an even higher penalty against yourself.
That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it. Was the defendant the original uploader? Not even close.
Actually Jammie Thomas was the original uploader. She ripped her CDs and then made them available on P2P. Secondly, that wasn't the creation of any precedent, that was just the jury applying current statues when it comes to copyright infringement (and it's not even the statutory maximum). Thirdly, Jammie Thomas is nothing but a guilty liar and her and anyone who supports her are just making it harder for those of us who try to make a legitimate case against the DMCA and current copyright laws. Finally, exactly what does a US trial and US statutes have to do with the UK?
The sooner we privatize all property, the sooner we will have a healthier environment for people to live in and prosper.
That's funny since the whole point of making national parks and protected areas was that such a thing didn't happen. It's actual quite the opposite. It is amusing though to hear you make claims that run completely counter to any established history.
If a player gets stuck, they'll have the option to pause play and allow the game to take over and play itself through any rough patches.
If everyone is encouraged to use the cheat button whenever they get stuck, what incentive does the game designer have to make a well balanced game?
This same statement could be said for the numerous cheats that have existed in PC and console games for ages and yet they haven't stopped game designers from making well-balanced games.
Some people, including myself, enjoy to actually experience the game. That certainly includes the challenge (and sometimes frustration) of having to unlock parts of the game.
Then I guess it's a good thing that this feature is entirely voluntary to use, 'bro.
If you can show measurable damage to your health, feel free to sue me and anyone else polluting your air.
We've known for years the damaging effects on people's respiratory system from air pollution. Let me guess, you probably still think 2nd hand smoke isn't dangerous, right?
Was this supposed to be a serious answer? Are you trying to claim that pollution magically knows only to exist over the property of the polluter and that it never gets carried to other areas?
Actually all rights are balanced against causing harm to others. This is why you can't falsely shout "FIRE" in a theater and claim it was under your first amendment right. Polluting doesn't exist in a vacuum. It directly and indirectly affects a huge number of people and as such you aren't just allowed to do it as you see fit.
Wow I love how the obviously flamebait above me, anyone who wants clean air and water must clearly be a genocidal communist like Stalin, gets modded insightful but I get modded troll. Gotta love that.
Ah yes, wanting their to be clean air and water for people to live in a generation from now is clearly the same as wanting to commit genocide. Could your right-wing loonies be anymore retarded?
Except that when a normal person uses the term "downward pressure" when referring to the cost of something it does mean that the price goes down (aka a downward pressure on oil prices means that oil costs less than it did before the downward pressure). You seem to be using this term contrary to the way in which the rest of the world uses it.
I'm pretty sure not everyone is creating and shipping their own H.264 encoders/decoders. Secondly, the comment amount creating and streaming the content applies to those serving the content (Google, Hulu, etc) not the people receiving.
And lets not forget mashing, which requires encoders and decoders.
Actually you don't pay double if your product is both an encoder and decoder. And the rates for those products are: $0 if you ship less than 100,000 units, 20 cents for every unit above 100,000 and 10 cents for any unit after you ship more than 5 million. So the overhead cost of buying a licensed and branded h.264 encoder for the end user is anywhere from 0 dollars to 20 cents. Pardon me while I don't get up in arms over 20 cents.
If developers have to pay when writing this software, the software gets more expensive and content creation gets stiffled.
Yeah, by a whole 20 cents per unit at it's most expensive. And that's only for those units that you ship above the free limit of 100,000.
That doesn't necessarily prove that Vorbis didn't make a difference.
Actually it does if the claim was that it made a difference by causing the MP3 license costs to go down. But since those fees for MP3 increased from what they were before Vorbis was released to the time after Vorbis has been released for years, it does prove that Vorbis has not "exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs". At least for the specific case of the mentioned MP3 codec.
The license is the single most important thing. It determines whether or not you can use the software at all, or for your specific purpose, whatever that is.
Actually the license has really no effect at all for the end user in either of these cases. The only people who are effected by the license are people who are either creating H.264 encoders/decoders or those who are creating and streaming H.264 content. And even the costs of running a website with over 1 million subscribers is only $100,000 a year and if you have that many subscribers and that much traffic $100,000 is nothing to you. And for most small sites (anything with less than 100,000 subscribers) you pay no royalties at all.
P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne. However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs.
But it didn't. In actuality, the license costs for licensing MP3 has actually increased since the time that Vorbis was being initially designed in some cases by almost 25%.
What is fishy about it? She has been clearly guilty of this crime since the beginning and she's only been assigned about half of the maximum statutory limit. I don't see why this leads to any notion that there was jury tampering. All it leads me to believe is that these statutory limits need to be seriously looked at and made to fit more correctly the crime.
Slashdot Mirror
This of course is not much comfort if you are on the losing end of one these court cases
Then maybe Jammie should have just have been an adult and admitted her guilt and taken the plea bargain rather than trying to use outrageous defenses (how can someone hack you through a wireless device when you don't even use a wireless device?) and racking up an even higher penalty against yourself.
Since this is a false analogy, no.
That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it. Was the defendant the original uploader? Not even close.
Actually Jammie Thomas was the original uploader. She ripped her CDs and then made them available on P2P. Secondly, that wasn't the creation of any precedent, that was just the jury applying current statues when it comes to copyright infringement (and it's not even the statutory maximum). Thirdly, Jammie Thomas is nothing but a guilty liar and her and anyone who supports her are just making it harder for those of us who try to make a legitimate case against the DMCA and current copyright laws. Finally, exactly what does a US trial and US statutes have to do with the UK?
The sooner we privatize all property, the sooner we will have a healthier environment for people to live in and prosper.
That's funny since the whole point of making national parks and protected areas was that such a thing didn't happen. It's actual quite the opposite. It is amusing though to hear you make claims that run completely counter to any established history.
You thought something posted by kdawson was a real article? You must be new here.
And what, exactly, business model supports the creation of digital content for free?
The youtube whore digital content creation model?
Is it really though?
Yes, it really is.
If a player gets stuck, they'll have the option to pause play and allow the game to take over and play itself through any rough patches.
If everyone is encouraged to use the cheat button whenever they get stuck, what incentive does the game designer have to make a well balanced game?
This same statement could be said for the numerous cheats that have existed in PC and console games for ages and yet they haven't stopped game designers from making well-balanced games.
Some people, including myself, enjoy to actually experience the game. That certainly includes the challenge (and sometimes frustration) of having to unlock parts of the game.
Then I guess it's a good thing that this feature is entirely voluntary to use, 'bro.
I don't think the facts bear you out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/09/games-dvd-music-downloads-piracy
Notice the bar for games sales and how it rises almost every year since 1999.
If you can show measurable damage to your health, feel free to sue me and anyone else polluting your air.
We've known for years the damaging effects on people's respiratory system from air pollution. Let me guess, you probably still think 2nd hand smoke isn't dangerous, right?
Was this supposed to be a serious answer? Are you trying to claim that pollution magically knows only to exist over the property of the polluter and that it never gets carried to other areas?
Actually all rights are balanced against causing harm to others. This is why you can't falsely shout "FIRE" in a theater and claim it was under your first amendment right. Polluting doesn't exist in a vacuum. It directly and indirectly affects a huge number of people and as such you aren't just allowed to do it as you see fit.
Wow I love how the obviously flamebait above me, anyone who wants clean air and water must clearly be a genocidal communist like Stalin, gets modded insightful but I get modded troll. Gotta love that.
Ah yes, wanting their to be clean air and water for people to live in a generation from now is clearly the same as wanting to commit genocide. Could your right-wing loonies be anymore retarded?
That stopped being true back in 2007 when they released version 10.0.
It has nothing to do with Ubuntu. Here are benchmarks from Firefox on Fedora: The issue is just as bad on Fedora: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox. That's only from a few months
The Windows version is compiled with PGO (profile guided optimization) while Linux versions aren't.
Except that when a normal person uses the term "downward pressure" when referring to the cost of something it does mean that the price goes down (aka a downward pressure on oil prices means that oil costs less than it did before the downward pressure). You seem to be using this term contrary to the way in which the rest of the world uses it.
Which is everyone.
I'm pretty sure not everyone is creating and shipping their own H.264 encoders/decoders. Secondly, the comment amount creating and streaming the content applies to those serving the content (Google, Hulu, etc) not the people receiving.
And lets not forget mashing, which requires encoders and decoders.
Actually you don't pay double if your product is both an encoder and decoder. And the rates for those products are: $0 if you ship less than 100,000 units, 20 cents for every unit above 100,000 and 10 cents for any unit after you ship more than 5 million. So the overhead cost of buying a licensed and branded h.264 encoder for the end user is anywhere from 0 dollars to 20 cents. Pardon me while I don't get up in arms over 20 cents.
If developers have to pay when writing this software, the software gets more expensive and content creation gets stiffled.
Yeah, by a whole 20 cents per unit at it's most expensive. And that's only for those units that you ship above the free limit of 100,000.
That doesn't necessarily prove that Vorbis didn't make a difference.
Actually it does if the claim was that it made a difference by causing the MP3 license costs to go down. But since those fees for MP3 increased from what they were before Vorbis was released to the time after Vorbis has been released for years, it does prove that Vorbis has not "exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs". At least for the specific case of the mentioned MP3 codec.
The license is the single most important thing. It determines whether or not you can use the software at all, or for your specific purpose, whatever that is.
Actually the license has really no effect at all for the end user in either of these cases. The only people who are effected by the license are people who are either creating H.264 encoders/decoders or those who are creating and streaming H.264 content. And even the costs of running a website with over 1 million subscribers is only $100,000 a year and if you have that many subscribers and that much traffic $100,000 is nothing to you. And for most small sites (anything with less than 100,000 subscribers) you pay no royalties at all.
I thought Theora was GPL-ed?
Then you thought wrong. It's always been under a 3-clause BSD license just like Vorbis.
P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne. However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs.
But it didn't. In actuality, the license costs for licensing MP3 has actually increased since the time that Vorbis was being initially designed in some cases by almost 25%.
What is fishy about it? She has been clearly guilty of this crime since the beginning and she's only been assigned about half of the maximum statutory limit. I don't see why this leads to any notion that there was jury tampering. All it leads me to believe is that these statutory limits need to be seriously looked at and made to fit more correctly the crime.
They don't forget about it. They just take a neutral stance.