4. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC have occasionally been accused of "shaking down" businesses that really don't play any music for which they need a license -- like, say, bars that only play traditional Irish songs that are in the public domain. If those stories are true, the shakedowns are bad, wrong, and potentially liability-producing. (See also 17 USC 110.)
So how hard is it to:
1. Get them to pony up a list of which songs were played on which days, and at which hour (when your defense is you never played any songs, or only played original songs for which you have a contractual arrangement with the writer, or played only public domain songs?
2. Collect legal fees and extra for the stress of the harassment, if they are unable to prove you ever played any of the music they license for which you have no alternative contract with the writers?
The apparent accusation in the accompanying article is that the bar owner arranged with musicians to have them only play original music. Maybe they played something else and that was what was heard. If ASCAP can state what song at what date and time, then maybe the bar owner has a case against the musicians (assuming he had a written contract with the terms "only play music you wrote and for which you grant performance license in this venue") for causing the "damage"?
It seems to me that small bar owners will need a written contract with these bands to restrict what gets played. And bands that are thin on original and are using existing licensable music to show off their performance stuff will be more limited in where they can perform, only at places that can afford the standard performance license packages from the 3 agencies.
Oh, and here is another acronym you might want to use (if you can figure out who licenses acronyms): IANYL = I am not your lawyer.
It's time to break up the phone company (again). They did it the wrong way the first time. And look what happened anyway... the pieces are coming back together like the liquid terminator.
The correct way to break up the phone company is to split it at the point between physical infrastructure (wires and dark fiber) and all services (in classic terms: "dial tone"). One company would be the monopoly company owning all that "last mile" infrastructure (which in major part was financed by taxpayers and rate payers in the past, including development of most of the right of ways they are laying fiber in now). This company would be regulated and tariffs would specify the rates for providing wire and fiber connectivity. The rates would guarantee a return on investment at reasonable percentage. Owning stock in this company would then be a low-risk investement but not a big money maker.
The other company from the split would be required to pay the same going rates as any other company to lease the wires or fiber on behalf of the customer they will be serving (and most go through the same provisioning process). This company would be serving "dial tone" in classic terms, or "IP routing" in more recent terms (or TV or whatever else might happen). The competition would be in this arena, and it would be made to be a level playing field, including audits to be sure everyone gets to lease the infrastructure at the same rates.
The telcos wanted to be sure they are getting a return on their fiber investment, which in theory should be a big benefit to us all. Well, with this kind of split and a single regulated monopoly owning that fiber, and getting a guaranteed return on that investment through something like a 5% markup over the cost of the fiber, then they will be getting their return on investment.
These rules should also allow any business or individual to lease the wires or fiber running to their premise and connect it with another going elsewhere with a standard cost for the install and lease of the "last mile" as well as the cross connect (a fraction of last mile cost). Then you can power or light the circuit yourself (like the old "alarm circuit" provisions).
Any fool can learn to put together a transmitter that steps all over any authorized user, on any frequency -- it's not that hard.
Sure, building something that transmits a signal on a given frequency is not hard. If intentionally causing interference is the goal, that's certainly easy. However, building a useful transmitter that can do for the builder the sophisticated kinds of things that can be done with wireless today involves a lot of technology. Very few people would care to do that from the ground up as a hobby.
Instead, what people would more likely do is modify existing hardware by inserting their own software. A major concern of the FCC is that this replacement software would in some way cause interference or other problems. For example, the hardware has the ability to operate over a wide range of frequencies outside the allocated spectrum. The allocated spectrum is actually different in different countries. The replacement software might direct the hardware to operate outside the allocated range. Another example is that variations in the protocols used might allow the replacement software to dominate the channel, defeating the channel sharing designed into the original protocol.
Wireless developers like the idea of controlling the radio parameters in software because it allows them to build devices that operate differently in different regulatory environments (e.g. have a different frequency or power in different countries) with only a change to the software loaded into flash, rather than a change of which chips are actually used. The hardware of such devices inherintly has to trust the software. If the device allows anyone to load in new software, then it is giving control over radio parameters to whoever loads that software. This is what the FCC is concerned about; people loading in their own software that either intentionally or accidentally causes interference to either the shared usability of the proper radio spectrum, or to other radio services in other bands. A frequency, that in another country may be usable for unlicensed wireless communication, might be assigned for something entirely different in the USA. Further, the frequency agility of the hardware is likely to be very wide.
The FCC is not so concerned about people building useless radiation devices just to cause interference. Few people have any interest in doing so. One or two pop up every year, but that is something they can keep an enforcement handle on. If someone creates some software that increases the number of available channels for some wireless devices from 11 (in the USA) to 200, spread out over a large range of frequencies normally used for other radio services, and posts this software on the internet (with instructions on how to easily load it), then this can create the FCC's worst interference nightmare.
That said, I admit I don't agree with the FCC's position as it relates to open source. I suggest that the FCC should, instead, create rules that require wireless devices to have built in protections that do not depend on the software running the device to be trusted with respect to radio parameters that control the regulatory compliance with the device. For example, the chip that actually runs the radio frequency control synthesis should have burned into it a boundary check that causes it to shut off the radio if a frequency outside the allowed range is requested. This would not be perfect, as there are still a few channels that are not allowed in the USA that are allowed in some other countries. But it would be a reasonable best effort, given that devices could be imported from those other countries and operated out of range, anyway.
To the extent that Cisco and other parties are doing this to destroy the ability of people to add new intelligence to their devices, such as the ability for a router to talk directly to another router over a radio channel, and form a mesh network, then I do think this rule is w
Most commercial/industrial buildings have 3-phase power. Most 3-phase power is of the "star/wye" configuration, which means 3 separate 120 volt transformer secondaries wired to a common grounded neutral. At 120 degrees phase angle, the voltage between any 2 of these 3 lines is 208 volts, not 240 volts. There are some exceptions where commercial buildings get single phase power, or an older delta type 3-phase system that has various kinds of problems with it.
They will use standard 240 volt outlets for that 208 volt power and some things will even work on it. Motors will draw more current and could overheat (if designed for the current they would have at 240 volts only). Heating elements will run at 75% capability (wattage). Computers designed for wide range (100-240 volts) will work. Computers designed for split range (110-120 and 220-240) may work at 208 volts.
Yes, the higher voltage is better because the current is less and the voltage drop/loss as a result of that will be less, even if the wires are thinner in proportion to the reduced current. It's just that you don't quite get as much of that as you could when you have 208 volts instead of genuine 240 volts.
I won't disclose how long ago I thought of this, but in the many years since I have not ever seen it done anywhere. So either it's a new idea, or it really doesn't work, or I just haven't looked around enough.
My idea is a simple syncronous motor without a controller that will run at double speed (6000 RPM at 50 Hz, 7200 RPM at 60 Hz). The idea is to construct the stator with 3-phase windings just like a normal syncronous motor. However, for the rotor, replace the permanent magnets with 3-phase windings powered by AC current coupled to the rotor through 4 slip rings. Wire the rotor windings so the rotating magnetic field turns in the opposite direction of the intended rotation and the stator field rotation. For proper startup, use 12 distinct windings organized as 6 pairs at opposite sides. Half of the windings will be wired to line-to-neutral power connections and the other half will be wired for 1.732 times the voltage and wired to line-to-line power connections. This should give a reasonably uniform magnetic field.
If they regularly archive all the postings tagged that way, then they would be able to overcome the biggest hurdle, which is a challenge to when the posting was actually made (or at least archived) as opposed to the date some computer claims it was posted on. It might not be considered prior art, but it could certainly go towards a challenge claiming obviousness.
Sure, it would help if patent examiners could see it. But the idea is that there is a documented record that someone thought of the idea before the patent was applied for, in case someone does want to challenge the patent, either in court or at the patent office. It doesn't have to challenged by the same person who posted the original idea.
As for the technical disclosures, how would you do one of those for the infamous and widely hated "1-click" patent? I do think that if this catches on, and a few patents do ultimately get challenged successfully, patent examiners may eventually be required to check this site for possible prior art.
If the site in any way appeared to be representing itself as legal for downloading and/or it could be associated with the movie industry itself, then one could argue they were being offered content by a representative of the content owner, and thus it would be legal. And they may well have intended to not even pursue for what was downloaded from that site. Instead, they would use the results of the software search of your computer (hey... can I get a GPL version for Linux, please) and see what else you had.
Unfortunately, in the USA, power to most commercial/industrial buildings is not available in 240 volts. Power on a large scale is provided in three phase so the power company distribution is kept in balance. But in the USA the primary choices for that are 208/120 volts, or 480/277 volts. Many power supplies would probably work OK at 277 volts, but since they are not specified for that, it's risky from many perspectives. 208 volts would work for full range power supplies, but maybe not for those that have two switchable voltages. Some parts of the USA can get power at 240/139 or 416/240 volts. That would work for all those international power supplies that can do everything from 100-240 volts.
Because you can perfectly recover a digital signal by sampling its analog equivalent using the same sampling parameters, infinite analog-analog copies are possible without further degradation if you resample between each pair of analog copies. (It's the same principle by which all digital circuits are built using only analog components, like transistors.)
I never thought about that before, but you are right. It's not analog you get out of a digital system; it's quantized analog.
My understanding of compulsory licensing is that any broadcaster, or any other entity wanting to obtain a license, for various purposes, can choose to either go to the copyright holder directly or their agent, -or-, go to the compulsory licensing entity (SoundExchange in the case of broadcasting... there are others for other purposes, such as The Harry Fox Agency for mechanical reproduction licensing).
How this impacts the broadcaster is that they have a choice. They can go to SoundExchange and get a license at the designated rate (the rate that is skyrocketing upwards). Or they can go directly to the copyright owner and make whatever deal they want if the copyright owner is willing, at any agreeable rate. This ensures the broadcaster that there is at least one way to get licensing, even if it is expensive. But if the copyright owner is willing, they could get a cheaper rate directly, or different terms.
How this impacts the copyright owner is that their music can be licensed out through SoundExchange, even if they didn't want to go through SoundExchange. They can then go to SoundExchange and get their share of the booty. The copyright owner can also make a deal separately with any broadcaster to license under different rates and terms. Obviously the broadcaster would choose to go to SoundExchange unless the direct deal is better (including figuring the costs of working out the deal).
If my understanding of this is correct, independent bands can make their music available to broadcasters directly. Because there would be so much work involved in setting up such deals because of so many broadcasters and so many bands, it won't be practical to do on any scale unless the bands either make a blanket no-fee license for all, or go through a common agent of their own choosing that can make package deals (e.g. broadcasters can get a package of bands licensed to play, and bands can get a package of broadcasters paying for their licensing).
The designated compulsory agent doesn't have to be a part of the deal at all. They are there, however, in case the broadcaster isn't able to make a deal because the copyright owner wouldn't work with them. It's basically a mechanism available for broadcasters to be able to get a license for sure (under terms that are now becoming basically favorable only to the big corporate broadcasters). So small multi-channel internet broadcasters have a choice between a lousy compulsory license they can't afford, or doing direct deals that will be too expensive to manage unless and alternate agency is set up.
If an alternate agency is set up, such as for independent bands, that agency does NOT have any compulsory authority. That means they cannot make a license available on a compulsory basis; they are limited to only licensing music of copyright owners they actually represent.
So, IMHO, internet broadcasters can still play music at rates less than what SoundExchange demands. They just have to cut their own deals with every copyright owner or their agents (there could easily come to be more than one, possibly quite many) instead of choosing the compulsory route.
So basically you are saying that in a private transaction between two parties that does not involve anything owned by anyone else, some third party gets to butt in and take money for nothing they have contributed.
Better yet, just use the direct machine totals to give the media for its election night news coverage so they can report who probably won by 9 PM. Then run all the machine printed (for consistency) paper ballots through scanners to get a vote certification. If the results vary, then do the investigation to verify the votes. The difference here is no one need request the paper count; it always gets done as part of certification. This way, we get fast results, and always get a verification.
So if an indie band makes arrangements with an internet radio broadcaster to allow that broadcaster to play their music under some terms (which conceivably could be anywhere from free to the previous fee arrangements), that's all good and legal? Of course I can see the difficulty in this in each party having to make so many deals. Maybe one option is for the indie bands to release their music online for broadcasters to download under a (new?) GML (GNU Music License).
I for one (and I am sure I am in a crowd) will be glad to see the corporate music business collapse and die.
What if I write, perform, and record my own music? Can I make that available to the internet radio stations on my own more favorable terms (assuming it might be good enough for them to like, which is probably stretching a rubber band to the moon). Or do I have to use this Copyright Royalties Board rule? Do artists have to use the CRB or is that just a general choice made by the corporations that so many artists have signed their soul over to?
What about having internet radio playing indie music instead?
I don't recommend any service. Instead, I recommend making the phone open so people can do their own shopping. Because of the fact that we have so many lock-ins, we end up with ALL the phone carriers being crappy. The best would be to make it illegal to couple the purchase of a phone with phone service. Let the phone carriers provide service, and let the phone manufacturers make them and sell them. That wouldn't rule out getting both in the same place, even if the place is operated by either the carrier or the manufacturer. If AT&T wants to sell iPhones, fine. I should be able to go buy one from their store without buying phone service from them. Or I should be able to buy the iPhone elsewhere and come to whatever carrier I want and sign up for service (and on a month to month or prepaid basis).
And I don't necessarily hold Apple in any special higher regard. They should be competing against other phone manufacturers. But they should not be competing against other phone carriers.
And I'm not talking about their marketing. Let them market how they want, as long as they are absolutely truthful in all that they say. What I am demanding is that there must be the option to buy any phone up front and use it with any carrier (with compatible technology) with monthly billing or non-expiring prepay. It would not rule out people getting things the other ways, if that's what they want.
As for your friends that are getting iPhones because they are cool... well that's actually the reason I want one, too. There's nothing wrong with that. If that's what Apple can make as a value for the consumer to get, great. The issue is the bundling with their choice of carrier, not mine. The other issue is that because of that general practice we all get stuck with having to choose the lesser of evils among carriers. Do any of your friends choose AT&T (f/k/a Cingular) because it's cool?
Slashdot Mirror
So how hard is it to:
The apparent accusation in the accompanying article is that the bar owner arranged with musicians to have them only play original music. Maybe they played something else and that was what was heard. If ASCAP can state what song at what date and time, then maybe the bar owner has a case against the musicians (assuming he had a written contract with the terms "only play music you wrote and for which you grant performance license in this venue") for causing the "damage"?
It seems to me that small bar owners will need a written contract with these bands to restrict what gets played. And bands that are thin on original and are using existing licensable music to show off their performance stuff will be more limited in where they can perform, only at places that can afford the standard performance license packages from the 3 agencies.
Oh, and here is another acronym you might want to use (if you can figure out who licenses acronyms): IANYL = I am not your lawyer.
It's time to break up the phone company (again). They did it the wrong way the first time. And look what happened anyway ... the pieces are coming back together like the liquid terminator.
The correct way to break up the phone company is to split it at the point between physical infrastructure (wires and dark fiber) and all services (in classic terms: "dial tone"). One company would be the monopoly company owning all that "last mile" infrastructure (which in major part was financed by taxpayers and rate payers in the past, including development of most of the right of ways they are laying fiber in now). This company would be regulated and tariffs would specify the rates for providing wire and fiber connectivity. The rates would guarantee a return on investment at reasonable percentage. Owning stock in this company would then be a low-risk investement but not a big money maker.
The other company from the split would be required to pay the same going rates as any other company to lease the wires or fiber on behalf of the customer they will be serving (and most go through the same provisioning process). This company would be serving "dial tone" in classic terms, or "IP routing" in more recent terms (or TV or whatever else might happen). The competition would be in this arena, and it would be made to be a level playing field, including audits to be sure everyone gets to lease the infrastructure at the same rates.
The telcos wanted to be sure they are getting a return on their fiber investment, which in theory should be a big benefit to us all. Well, with this kind of split and a single regulated monopoly owning that fiber, and getting a guaranteed return on that investment through something like a 5% markup over the cost of the fiber, then they will be getting their return on investment.
These rules should also allow any business or individual to lease the wires or fiber running to their premise and connect it with another going elsewhere with a standard cost for the install and lease of the "last mile" as well as the cross connect (a fraction of last mile cost). Then you can power or light the circuit yourself (like the old "alarm circuit" provisions).
Sure, building something that transmits a signal on a given frequency is not hard. If intentionally causing interference is the goal, that's certainly easy. However, building a useful transmitter that can do for the builder the sophisticated kinds of things that can be done with wireless today involves a lot of technology. Very few people would care to do that from the ground up as a hobby.
Instead, what people would more likely do is modify existing hardware by inserting their own software. A major concern of the FCC is that this replacement software would in some way cause interference or other problems. For example, the hardware has the ability to operate over a wide range of frequencies outside the allocated spectrum. The allocated spectrum is actually different in different countries. The replacement software might direct the hardware to operate outside the allocated range. Another example is that variations in the protocols used might allow the replacement software to dominate the channel, defeating the channel sharing designed into the original protocol.
Wireless developers like the idea of controlling the radio parameters in software because it allows them to build devices that operate differently in different regulatory environments (e.g. have a different frequency or power in different countries) with only a change to the software loaded into flash, rather than a change of which chips are actually used. The hardware of such devices inherintly has to trust the software. If the device allows anyone to load in new software, then it is giving control over radio parameters to whoever loads that software. This is what the FCC is concerned about; people loading in their own software that either intentionally or accidentally causes interference to either the shared usability of the proper radio spectrum, or to other radio services in other bands. A frequency, that in another country may be usable for unlicensed wireless communication, might be assigned for something entirely different in the USA. Further, the frequency agility of the hardware is likely to be very wide.
The FCC is not so concerned about people building useless radiation devices just to cause interference. Few people have any interest in doing so. One or two pop up every year, but that is something they can keep an enforcement handle on. If someone creates some software that increases the number of available channels for some wireless devices from 11 (in the USA) to 200, spread out over a large range of frequencies normally used for other radio services, and posts this software on the internet (with instructions on how to easily load it), then this can create the FCC's worst interference nightmare.
That said, I admit I don't agree with the FCC's position as it relates to open source. I suggest that the FCC should, instead, create rules that require wireless devices to have built in protections that do not depend on the software running the device to be trusted with respect to radio parameters that control the regulatory compliance with the device. For example, the chip that actually runs the radio frequency control synthesis should have burned into it a boundary check that causes it to shut off the radio if a frequency outside the allowed range is requested. This would not be perfect, as there are still a few channels that are not allowed in the USA that are allowed in some other countries. But it would be a reasonable best effort, given that devices could be imported from those other countries and operated out of range, anyway.
To the extent that Cisco and other parties are doing this to destroy the ability of people to add new intelligence to their devices, such as the ability for a router to talk directly to another router over a radio channel, and form a mesh network, then I do think this rule is w
Most commercial/industrial buildings have 3-phase power. Most 3-phase power is of the "star/wye" configuration, which means 3 separate 120 volt transformer secondaries wired to a common grounded neutral. At 120 degrees phase angle, the voltage between any 2 of these 3 lines is 208 volts, not 240 volts. There are some exceptions where commercial buildings get single phase power, or an older delta type 3-phase system that has various kinds of problems with it.
They will use standard 240 volt outlets for that 208 volt power and some things will even work on it. Motors will draw more current and could overheat (if designed for the current they would have at 240 volts only). Heating elements will run at 75% capability (wattage). Computers designed for wide range (100-240 volts) will work. Computers designed for split range (110-120 and 220-240) may work at 208 volts.
Yes, the higher voltage is better because the current is less and the voltage drop/loss as a result of that will be less, even if the wires are thinner in proportion to the reduced current. It's just that you don't quite get as much of that as you could when you have 208 volts instead of genuine 240 volts.
Prior art is actually patent 5,578,877. It's just bigger.
I won't disclose how long ago I thought of this, but in the many years since I have not ever seen it done anywhere. So either it's a new idea, or it really doesn't work, or I just haven't looked around enough.
My idea is a simple syncronous motor without a controller that will run at double speed (6000 RPM at 50 Hz, 7200 RPM at 60 Hz). The idea is to construct the stator with 3-phase windings just like a normal syncronous motor. However, for the rotor, replace the permanent magnets with 3-phase windings powered by AC current coupled to the rotor through 4 slip rings. Wire the rotor windings so the rotating magnetic field turns in the opposite direction of the intended rotation and the stator field rotation. For proper startup, use 12 distinct windings organized as 6 pairs at opposite sides. Half of the windings will be wired to line-to-neutral power connections and the other half will be wired for 1.732 times the voltage and wired to line-to-line power connections. This should give a reasonably uniform magnetic field.
Now, how do I get this tagged?
If they regularly archive all the postings tagged that way, then they would be able to overcome the biggest hurdle, which is a challenge to when the posting was actually made (or at least archived) as opposed to the date some computer claims it was posted on. It might not be considered prior art, but it could certainly go towards a challenge claiming obviousness.
Sure, it would help if patent examiners could see it. But the idea is that there is a documented record that someone thought of the idea before the patent was applied for, in case someone does want to challenge the patent, either in court or at the patent office. It doesn't have to challenged by the same person who posted the original idea.
As for the technical disclosures, how would you do one of those for the infamous and widely hated "1-click" patent? I do think that if this catches on, and a few patents do ultimately get challenged successfully, patent examiners may eventually be required to check this site for possible prior art.
Just let the FSF do it. They might not even need to have ads. Of course someone will need to filter out all the spam.
If the site in any way appeared to be representing itself as legal for downloading and/or it could be associated with the movie industry itself, then one could argue they were being offered content by a representative of the content owner, and thus it would be legal. And they may well have intended to not even pursue for what was downloaded from that site. Instead, they would use the results of the software search of your computer (hey ... can I get a GPL version for Linux, please) and see what else you had.
... being able to successfully activate it and use it on a different phone provider.
... in India.
Call in sick. You know it will make you sick if you can't get your Slack.
Unfortunately, in the USA, power to most commercial/industrial buildings is not available in 240 volts. Power on a large scale is provided in three phase so the power company distribution is kept in balance. But in the USA the primary choices for that are 208/120 volts, or 480/277 volts. Many power supplies would probably work OK at 277 volts, but since they are not specified for that, it's risky from many perspectives. 208 volts would work for full range power supplies, but maybe not for those that have two switchable voltages. Some parts of the USA can get power at 240/139 or 416/240 volts. That would work for all those international power supplies that can do everything from 100-240 volts.
I never thought about that before, but you are right. It's not analog you get out of a digital system; it's quantized analog.
My understanding of compulsory licensing is that any broadcaster, or any other entity wanting to obtain a license, for various purposes, can choose to either go to the copyright holder directly or their agent, -or-, go to the compulsory licensing entity (SoundExchange in the case of broadcasting ... there are others for other purposes, such as The Harry Fox Agency for mechanical reproduction licensing).
How this impacts the broadcaster is that they have a choice. They can go to SoundExchange and get a license at the designated rate (the rate that is skyrocketing upwards). Or they can go directly to the copyright owner and make whatever deal they want if the copyright owner is willing, at any agreeable rate. This ensures the broadcaster that there is at least one way to get licensing, even if it is expensive. But if the copyright owner is willing, they could get a cheaper rate directly, or different terms.
How this impacts the copyright owner is that their music can be licensed out through SoundExchange, even if they didn't want to go through SoundExchange. They can then go to SoundExchange and get their share of the booty. The copyright owner can also make a deal separately with any broadcaster to license under different rates and terms. Obviously the broadcaster would choose to go to SoundExchange unless the direct deal is better (including figuring the costs of working out the deal).
If my understanding of this is correct, independent bands can make their music available to broadcasters directly. Because there would be so much work involved in setting up such deals because of so many broadcasters and so many bands, it won't be practical to do on any scale unless the bands either make a blanket no-fee license for all, or go through a common agent of their own choosing that can make package deals (e.g. broadcasters can get a package of bands licensed to play, and bands can get a package of broadcasters paying for their licensing).
The designated compulsory agent doesn't have to be a part of the deal at all. They are there, however, in case the broadcaster isn't able to make a deal because the copyright owner wouldn't work with them. It's basically a mechanism available for broadcasters to be able to get a license for sure (under terms that are now becoming basically favorable only to the big corporate broadcasters). So small multi-channel internet broadcasters have a choice between a lousy compulsory license they can't afford, or doing direct deals that will be too expensive to manage unless and alternate agency is set up.
If an alternate agency is set up, such as for independent bands, that agency does NOT have any compulsory authority. That means they cannot make a license available on a compulsory basis; they are limited to only licensing music of copyright owners they actually represent.
So, IMHO, internet broadcasters can still play music at rates less than what SoundExchange demands. They just have to cut their own deals with every copyright owner or their agents (there could easily come to be more than one, possibly quite many) instead of choosing the compulsory route.
Have you ported Windows Vista to the ARM CPU?
So basically you are saying that in a private transaction between two parties that does not involve anything owned by anyone else, some third party gets to butt in and take money for nothing they have contributed.
Better yet, just use the direct machine totals to give the media for its election night news coverage so they can report who probably won by 9 PM. Then run all the machine printed (for consistency) paper ballots through scanners to get a vote certification. If the results vary, then do the investigation to verify the votes. The difference here is no one need request the paper count; it always gets done as part of certification. This way, we get fast results, and always get a verification.
"No user serviceable parts inside"
So if an indie band makes arrangements with an internet radio broadcaster to allow that broadcaster to play their music under some terms (which conceivably could be anywhere from free to the previous fee arrangements), that's all good and legal? Of course I can see the difficulty in this in each party having to make so many deals. Maybe one option is for the indie bands to release their music online for broadcasters to download under a (new?) GML (GNU Music License).
I for one (and I am sure I am in a crowd) will be glad to see the corporate music business collapse and die.
What if I write, perform, and record my own music? Can I make that available to the internet radio stations on my own more favorable terms (assuming it might be good enough for them to like, which is probably stretching a rubber band to the moon). Or do I have to use this Copyright Royalties Board rule? Do artists have to use the CRB or is that just a general choice made by the corporations that so many artists have signed their soul over to?
What about having internet radio playing indie music instead?
... I just ported it to a new platform without creating a derived work.
Oh! OK! An unlimited number of files, then?
I don't recommend any service. Instead, I recommend making the phone open so people can do their own shopping. Because of the fact that we have so many lock-ins, we end up with ALL the phone carriers being crappy. The best would be to make it illegal to couple the purchase of a phone with phone service. Let the phone carriers provide service, and let the phone manufacturers make them and sell them. That wouldn't rule out getting both in the same place, even if the place is operated by either the carrier or the manufacturer. If AT&T wants to sell iPhones, fine. I should be able to go buy one from their store without buying phone service from them. Or I should be able to buy the iPhone elsewhere and come to whatever carrier I want and sign up for service (and on a month to month or prepaid basis).
And I don't necessarily hold Apple in any special higher regard. They should be competing against other phone manufacturers. But they should not be competing against other phone carriers.
And I'm not talking about their marketing. Let them market how they want, as long as they are absolutely truthful in all that they say. What I am demanding is that there must be the option to buy any phone up front and use it with any carrier (with compatible technology) with monthly billing or non-expiring prepay. It would not rule out people getting things the other ways, if that's what they want.
As for your friends that are getting iPhones because they are cool ... well that's actually the reason I want one, too. There's nothing wrong with that. If that's what Apple can make as a value for the consumer to get, great. The issue is the bundling with their choice of carrier, not mine. The other issue is that because of that general practice we all get stuck with having to choose the lesser of evils among carriers. Do any of your friends choose AT&T (f/k/a Cingular) because it's cool?