Well, perhaps, though I'd have to dig up some data and make calculations to be sure (obligatory semi-related XKDC)...though, he seems to have obtained a physics PHD recently, so he should at least be able to make ends meet.
Either way it's an oppressive and unjustifiable judgement amount, but I would certainly choose that vs. 20 years in prison.
If the judgement is upheld, and he has to pay the $675k, he's most likely not going to be able to pay that sum.
What would happen then?
I guess they would probably seize and sell his properties, but that's probably not enough.
So would he go to jail and have his debt written off, or is he going to kept them for his whole life?
Something else maybe?
Basically, why fine someone a sum the judge knows that the defendant won't be able to pay? To make an example I guess, but is there something else?
If he eventually fails in appeal and refuses to pay/make payments, his wages will likely be garnished for a long time. He evidently obtained a PHD this year so his earning potential is well above average.
The situation you describe would certainly be criminal infringement as it is performed on a commercial scale. No civil lawsuit would be necessary or sensible in such a case.
The major problems that most people have (admittedly excluding those who advocate abolishment of copyright) are with the ridiculously overboard civil issues that must be endured. To quote Judge Gertner regarding this case:
"(The damages are)...far greater than necessary to serve the government's legitimate interests in compensating copyright owners and deterring infringement. In fact, it bears no meaningful relationship to these objectives. To borrow Chief Judge Michael J. Davis' characterization of a smaller statutory damages award in an analogous file-sharing case, the award here is simply 'unprecedented and oppressive.'"
An actual tax burden of 43% (excluding sales tax, property tax etc.) would be very high in the US. 50% is about average for the Nordic Model countries.
Something like 75% of working Americans are taxed exclusively in the 15% income bracket or lower for federal income tax (before any deductions. Mortgage interest, student loan interest, tuition, medical expenses, and various other things can be deducted.
Almost half of Americans end up paying no federal income tax. This is mostly due to low income combined with deductions and credits for children.
We do have lots of other taxes (property, sales, etc.) that increase the tax burden (especially for the poor), but personal taxes are still very low compared with most other developed nations. However, we have no pensions, a miserably failed SS system, nonexistent public transportation, bad primary and secondary schools, and expensive healthcare and post-secondary education.
For some odd reason, it always ends up with the same result, you may earn less, but you may live cheaper. You may have higher taxes, but you have to pay less for services you need anyway. You may have lower taxes, but have to pay for everything basic to everyone else. Same difference.
I think this is more-or-less true in most developed countries. I'm not familiar with taxation theory, but I suspect that there are some economics-related postulates or whatever that describe this. Likely tax burdens will naturally gravitate towards whatever the populace will tolerate, impacted heavily by cost of living in general.
Interestingly, in the US taxes, cost of living, and public services vary drastically by state (and often by locality). My property taxes are extremely low (around 0.5% of my property value), but my state has a ~5% income tax and a 4% state sales tax. A nearby state has no income tax, but a property and sales taxes are roughly double.
Sweden has a population of about 9.5 million (about the size of the US state of North Carolina). Their GDP per capita adjusted for PPP is around $48,500. This would put them around 20th among US states.
They both adhere to Nordic Model socioeconomic systems (which includes universal 'free' healthcare and education), which are rather successful. The tax burdens in these countries are very high, fluctuating around 50%.
I'll second the Mikogo recommendation. I was looking for a solution for the submitted problem a while back, and Mikogo was the only package I found that was free for any use. It works pretty well with extremely limited involvement from the user and no preparation required.
I generally don't like to make blanket statements like this, but in this case it is mostly true.
Yes, there are some people that are experiencing some genuinely bad luck while job-hunting at the moment, but there is almost a glut of IT jobs right now. I've watched job listings increase by thousands over the last couple of years.
The biggest thing I see that prevents people from getting IT jobs is an unwillingness to move. If you're sitting in Nowhere, Arkansas or something then the job market probably looks a little bleak.
Courts are evidently split on whether a 'shrinkwrap' contract (which an EULA is) are enforceable or not.
They are considered to be contracts of adhesion and therefore subject to a different level of scrutiny than a more traditional type of contract, even if ruled enforceable.
>So, there you are in a new country with a different culture
Are you talking about the American tourist with the science-project band-aid spectacles who can only afford to eat in fast food restaurants whilst visiting the greatest gastronomic city on Earth, or the third-generation Parisian restaurant owner with the native passport?
Knowing what the cost of living in Paris is, versus the squalid living conditions of many minor American academics and generally hilarious wages in the USA (from which you then have to subtract heath insurance and vacation days... LOL), I know which one I'd be looking down on. It's half a million Euros minimum just to start a McDonalds franchise in one location in Europe; in Paris, a shedload more. That chap with the tie in the photos, he's probably the franchise owner, he's probably a millionaire.
First, Dr. Mann is Canadian.
Second, McDonalds franchises work similarly in the US. They require large amounts of startup capital and they employ lots of low-wage workers to run the store. The "chap with the tie" in the photos is very likely to be an assistant manager making a few bucks an hour, or at best the store manager making €30k/year. I would be surprised if one of the franchise owners sets foot in the place more than once a month.
And I don't care how goofy or socially awkward the guy was, it doesn't justify thuggery from these low-lifes, especially store employees.
Well, Tolkien sold the rights back in the late 60's for something of a pittance. He had a tax bill he needed paid and the film rights would have little value for a couple of decades. The illustrious Mr. Zaentz acquired them at a later date.
Honestly though, if he hadn't sold the rights at the time, it's likely they would still be held by the Tolkien Trust, with nobody getting any royalty money.
This is correct. The additional content will be things that were alluded to in the Hobbit and LOTR (including LOTR appendices), likely supplemented by original material from the writing team.
The Silmarillion and other posthumous-content film rights currently remain with the Tolkien Trust and will likely not be sold until sometime after Christopher Tolkien's death. With the money to be made there I assume the film rights will be pounced on before he is even cold in the grave.
Spending at local and state levels is extremely variable and requires a little research, but federal spending is pretty easily accessible. Here is a nice interactive chart!
Keep in mind that public finance and macro-economics are a bit more complicated than this, but it's good information in any case.
First, people who pirate your games or whatever are not stealing anything. You obviously allowed people access to the work, they are just not using it as you intended. You may not like this behavior, and you would be perfectly justified in not liking it, AND it is likely illegal, but it doesn't mean they are thieves. Sometimes people do things I don't like, and I wish they would pay me instead, but they rarely do so (sorry, that's a little facetious...).
Also, I find it strangely ironic that you are raging about people who pirate your stuff having a sense of entitlement, when you are arguing from a position of entitlement yourself. You realize that you are claiming to be entitled to financial reward from the release of some kind of media? If you choose to release a game, book, movie, song, or whatever you run the risk that people will make copies, and give it to other people. You are entitled to nothing from this. Nobody operating any sort of business is entitled to succeed. Many (most) business ventures fail miserably, often despite hard work. Instead of whining about being harmed by people stealing from you, suck it up. Do what you can, but it may just not work out. If it doesn't work out, then congratulations, you are one of the majority!
I return clothes I don't like.
I return stereos I don't like.
I return slow underpowered phones I don't like.
And so on. I fail to see how a DVD is any different. Either the store or studio can toss the DVD in a "used-like new" bin and sell it to someone else. PLUS they don't lose any money if they give me a store credit.
Many people do this, but it is not because we have the "right" to do so. We do so because the vendors we purchase products from allow it.
Also, a computer game or dvd or something is not very comparable to a tangible object like a stereo (for example). They are somewhere between a tangible item and a consumable item, like food or toilet paper.
Entertainment media is probably comparable to...tools maybe? If you have ever gone and bought a wrench for a particular purpose, used it, then tried to return it, you should see what I am referring to. Many stores will not allow you to return tools that have any evidence of use, to prevent abuse.
>>> If something sucks, we're entitled to our money back.
Exactly.
This applies to DVDs and CDs too. I refuse to buy either if I can't later return them for refund or store credit, when the content sucks.
I disagree. If something is defective, the consumer should have the right to exchange it for a non-defective product. If the product functions properly (and the seller was not using deceptive trade practices), but the purchaser just doesn't really like it, it would be unethical to return the product in many cases. Many vendors allow the return of products for any reason or no reason, as a customer courtesy, and many jurisdictions have laws governing this, but claiming that this behavior is a "right" is a little off the mark.
I live in a "first-world" society, and bank accounts are ubiquitous here. If you have even a negligible amount of money (like, $100) you can get a bank account whenever you want. From my observation, it is extremely rare for people who receive and spend money on a regular basis to not have a bank account.
Lack of a credit card is more common, but they are also easy to get (if you don't have ridiculously bad credit). Example: my little brother who has no bills in his name and works at Walmart part-time was able to walk into his bank and get a low-limit CC with very little hassle.
Anyone who has a bank account can get a debit card anyway, which functions very similar to a CC for electronic purchases.
Slashdot Mirror
Or he could start from here and then continue further!.
Hint: nobody really wants that.
Here is an explanation of what to do if your SSN gets compromised, courtesy of the Federal Trade Commission.
It's the content industry that started the property comparisons. E.g. "You wouldn't steal a car?"
"Theft of services" is an obscure turn of phrase. Most people understand the concept as "larceny" or some sort of fraud.
Well, perhaps, though I'd have to dig up some data and make calculations to be sure (obligatory semi-related XKDC)...though, he seems to have obtained a physics PHD recently, so he should at least be able to make ends meet.
Either way it's an oppressive and unjustifiable judgement amount, but I would certainly choose that vs. 20 years in prison.
Nice! I recently found out about Puget when I was looking for an oil cooled PC kit. I've been drooling over that thing for months.
If the judgement is upheld, and he has to pay the $675k, he's most likely not going to be able to pay that sum. What would happen then?
I guess they would probably seize and sell his properties, but that's probably not enough. So would he go to jail and have his debt written off, or is he going to kept them for his whole life? Something else maybe?
Basically, why fine someone a sum the judge knows that the defendant won't be able to pay? To make an example I guess, but is there something else?
If he eventually fails in appeal and refuses to pay/make payments, his wages will likely be garnished for a long time. He evidently obtained a PHD this year so his earning potential is well above average.
He actually offered to pay significantly more than $30.00.
"The mean prison sentence for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was nearly 20 years and 8 months; the median was 24 years and 3 months."
Not to defend the judgement, but I'm going to go ahead and say that 20 years in prison is a lot higher on the 'life-ruining' scale than $675,000.
Strawman example =[
The situation you describe would certainly be criminal infringement as it is performed on a commercial scale. No civil lawsuit would be necessary or sensible in such a case.
The major problems that most people have (admittedly excluding those who advocate abolishment of copyright) are with the ridiculously overboard civil issues that must be endured. To quote Judge Gertner regarding this case:
"(The damages are)...far greater than necessary to serve the government's legitimate interests in compensating copyright owners and deterring infringement. In fact, it bears no meaningful relationship to these objectives. To borrow Chief Judge Michael J. Davis' characterization of a smaller statutory damages award in an analogous file-sharing case, the award here is simply 'unprecedented and oppressive.'"
An actual tax burden of 43% (excluding sales tax, property tax etc.) would be very high in the US. 50% is about average for the Nordic Model countries.
Something like 75% of working Americans are taxed exclusively in the 15% income bracket or lower for federal income tax (before any deductions. Mortgage interest, student loan interest, tuition, medical expenses, and various other things can be deducted.
Almost half of Americans end up paying no federal income tax. This is mostly due to low income combined with deductions and credits for children.
We do have lots of other taxes (property, sales, etc.) that increase the tax burden (especially for the poor), but personal taxes are still very low compared with most other developed nations. However, we have no pensions, a miserably failed SS system, nonexistent public transportation, bad primary and secondary schools, and expensive healthcare and post-secondary education.
For some odd reason, it always ends up with the same result, you may earn less, but you may live cheaper. You may have higher taxes, but you have to pay less for services you need anyway. You may have lower taxes, but have to pay for everything basic to everyone else. Same difference.
I think this is more-or-less true in most developed countries. I'm not familiar with taxation theory, but I suspect that there are some economics-related postulates or whatever that describe this. Likely tax burdens will naturally gravitate towards whatever the populace will tolerate, impacted heavily by cost of living in general.
Interestingly, in the US taxes, cost of living, and public services vary drastically by state (and often by locality). My property taxes are extremely low (around 0.5% of my property value), but my state has a ~5% income tax and a 4% state sales tax. A nearby state has no income tax, but a property and sales taxes are roughly double.
Just some economic/demographic perspective for Americans that may not be familiar with the Scandinavian countries:
Norway has a population around 5 million (roughly the size of the US state of Alabama or Colorado.
Norway's GDP per capita adjusted for PPP is about $53,500. This would put them around 10th among us states.
Sweden has a population of about 9.5 million (about the size of the US state of North Carolina). Their GDP per capita adjusted for PPP is around $48,500. This would put them around 20th among US states.
They both adhere to Nordic Model socioeconomic systems (which includes universal 'free' healthcare and education), which are rather successful. The tax burdens in these countries are very high, fluctuating around 50%.
I'll second the Mikogo recommendation. I was looking for a solution for the submitted problem a while back, and Mikogo was the only package I found that was free for any use. It works pretty well with extremely limited involvement from the user and no preparation required.
with that spelling, he'll need UK Google!
I generally don't like to make blanket statements like this, but in this case it is mostly true.
Yes, there are some people that are experiencing some genuinely bad luck while job-hunting at the moment, but there is almost a glut of IT jobs right now. I've watched job listings increase by thousands over the last couple of years.
The biggest thing I see that prevents people from getting IT jobs is an unwillingness to move. If you're sitting in Nowhere, Arkansas or something then the job market probably looks a little bleak.
Courts are evidently split on whether a 'shrinkwrap' contract (which an EULA is) are enforceable or not.
They are considered to be contracts of adhesion and therefore subject to a different level of scrutiny than a more traditional type of contract, even if ruled enforceable.
>So, there you are in a new country with a different culture
Are you talking about the American tourist with the science-project band-aid spectacles who can only afford to eat in fast food restaurants whilst visiting the greatest gastronomic city on Earth, or the third-generation Parisian restaurant owner with the native passport?
Knowing what the cost of living in Paris is, versus the squalid living conditions of many minor American academics and generally hilarious wages in the USA (from which you then have to subtract heath insurance and vacation days... LOL), I know which one I'd be looking down on. It's half a million Euros minimum just to start a McDonalds franchise in one location in Europe; in Paris, a shedload more. That chap with the tie in the photos, he's probably the franchise owner, he's probably a millionaire.
First, Dr. Mann is Canadian.
Second, McDonalds franchises work similarly in the US. They require large amounts of startup capital and they employ lots of low-wage workers to run the store. The "chap with the tie" in the photos is very likely to be an assistant manager making a few bucks an hour, or at best the store manager making €30k/year. I would be surprised if one of the franchise owners sets foot in the place more than once a month.
And I don't care how goofy or socially awkward the guy was, it doesn't justify thuggery from these low-lifes, especially store employees.
Well, Tolkien sold the rights back in the late 60's for something of a pittance. He had a tax bill he needed paid and the film rights would have little value for a couple of decades. The illustrious Mr. Zaentz acquired them at a later date.
Honestly though, if he hadn't sold the rights at the time, it's likely they would still be held by the Tolkien Trust, with nobody getting any royalty money.
This is correct. The additional content will be things that were alluded to in the Hobbit and LOTR (including LOTR appendices), likely supplemented by original material from the writing team.
The Silmarillion and other posthumous-content film rights currently remain with the Tolkien Trust and will likely not be sold until sometime after Christopher Tolkien's death. With the money to be made there I assume the film rights will be pounced on before he is even cold in the grave.
The device you are describing is called a Bidet.
I've often wondered why they aren't more popular in western countries.
Spending at local and state levels is extremely variable and requires a little research, but federal spending is pretty easily accessible. Here is a nice interactive chart!
Keep in mind that public finance and macro-economics are a bit more complicated than this, but it's good information in any case.
A few things:
First, people who pirate your games or whatever are not stealing anything. You obviously allowed people access to the work, they are just not using it as you intended. You may not like this behavior, and you would be perfectly justified in not liking it, AND it is likely illegal, but it doesn't mean they are thieves. Sometimes people do things I don't like, and I wish they would pay me instead, but they rarely do so (sorry, that's a little facetious...).
Also, I find it strangely ironic that you are raging about people who pirate your stuff having a sense of entitlement, when you are arguing from a position of entitlement yourself. You realize that you are claiming to be entitled to financial reward from the release of some kind of media? If you choose to release a game, book, movie, song, or whatever you run the risk that people will make copies, and give it to other people. You are entitled to nothing from this. Nobody operating any sort of business is entitled to succeed. Many (most) business ventures fail miserably, often despite hard work. Instead of whining about being harmed by people stealing from you, suck it up. Do what you can, but it may just not work out. If it doesn't work out, then congratulations, you are one of the majority!
I return clothes I don't like. I return stereos I don't like. I return slow underpowered phones I don't like. And so on. I fail to see how a DVD is any different. Either the store or studio can toss the DVD in a "used-like new" bin and sell it to someone else. PLUS they don't lose any money if they give me a store credit.
Many people do this, but it is not because we have the "right" to do so. We do so because the vendors we purchase products from allow it.
Also, a computer game or dvd or something is not very comparable to a tangible object like a stereo (for example). They are somewhere between a tangible item and a consumable item, like food or toilet paper.
Entertainment media is probably comparable to...tools maybe? If you have ever gone and bought a wrench for a particular purpose, used it, then tried to return it, you should see what I am referring to. Many stores will not allow you to return tools that have any evidence of use, to prevent abuse.
>>> If something sucks, we're entitled to our money back.
Exactly. This applies to DVDs and CDs too. I refuse to buy either if I can't later return them for refund or store credit, when the content sucks.
I disagree. If something is defective, the consumer should have the right to exchange it for a non-defective product. If the product functions properly (and the seller was not using deceptive trade practices), but the purchaser just doesn't really like it, it would be unethical to return the product in many cases. Many vendors allow the return of products for any reason or no reason, as a customer courtesy, and many jurisdictions have laws governing this, but claiming that this behavior is a "right" is a little off the mark.
I live in a "first-world" society, and bank accounts are ubiquitous here. If you have even a negligible amount of money (like, $100) you can get a bank account whenever you want. From my observation, it is extremely rare for people who receive and spend money on a regular basis to not have a bank account.
Lack of a credit card is more common, but they are also easy to get (if you don't have ridiculously bad credit). Example: my little brother who has no bills in his name and works at Walmart part-time was able to walk into his bank and get a low-limit CC with very little hassle.
Anyone who has a bank account can get a debit card anyway, which functions very similar to a CC for electronic purchases.