1. Find out how many people obtained the song from that source 2. Find out that given a set of X people, what percentage would have purchased the song - this is the difficult part, but I'm sure you could aggregate data from online purchasing sites or something. Or even better - grab a bunch of people from the street - give them a pre-decided price, ask them whether the song is worth X dollars. 3. This person pays for the copies of the people would have purchased it otherwise. If its one of those 99 cent songs on itunes, then he probably won't be paying much.
That is all right and true - however the problem comes when you have to try to prove that this law wasn't adhered to.
Lets say for example I go for a apply for a job. I have an interview, and when I leave this potential employer facebooks my name and finds an image of me drunk off my head on a saturday. He phones me and tells me that they chose someone else instead.
How would I be able to prove that it was an infringment of this law? How would I be able to prove that it wasn't because the someone else is better than me? That because he made a better impression in the interview or whatever?
"The same European Commission is, for example, currently conspiring with several other governments and big business organizations to promote even more surveillance and enforcement with ACTA, and denies the European Parliament access to the text of the proposal agreements"
In the EU, there is an independant court called the "European Court of Human Rights" which deals with things of that manner. If you honestly feel that the government is infringing your rights in this manner, you can actually sue your government for it.
And in certain cases, the government actually lost and had to pay up and change - so its not just a 'pretend' court.
Because for some reason, if the government puts his foot in the door, its the first step towards "Socialism" and 'the dark side'.
Corporations will fill the 'leader' voice without any consensus or something like that.
Moroever, when you have large comapnies - they can afford to pay for advertising which turns you towards their side. Do you wonder how many "Obama's Healthcare Plan == Bad" complaints came from (or were backed by) private hospitals and insurance companies?
You're not being brainwashed enough. Go watch another American-made cold-war film, put on some patriotic speeches and let me not here any nonsense like that again!
The problem isn't facebook as-such - the problem is how the web is turning into a semantic one - which lets you link information to one another.
If in the old days, I had a website with a few friends which we put images on - then only my friends would know about that. If I had any embarassing images, or images of me getting wasted or something - there is no problem at all.
People have many different aspects - and they would kindly like to keep those aspects seperate. You may be known to your friends as "That person who can belch the loudest", but when you're writing a C.V. - you don't put it over there. People want to keep these information private to certain people- the problem is that with all the links now - you can't really do that.
To give a proper example - take Linkln (which is used for 'professional' networking) and Facebook. You would ideally have a professional 'aspect' being shown there for your employer to see that you went to convention X, worked at company Y for N years et cetera - you don't want your employer to look at your 'wild side' on Facebook.
To summerise the above disjunctions - I may want my different aspects to be avaliable online - but I don't want everyone to be able to access them - and I want to be able to 'erase' mistakes which happened in my past - especially to someone important. People change (and therefore have "A right to be forgotten") and people have different aspects for different people - the way you are towards your friends =/= way you are towards your partner =/= towards your parents =/= towards your employers.
Because once upon a time, during a period of time called the "Cold War", America stood for individual and corporate freedom against a "Government Run" evil communist empire.
And the mentality of "Better Dead than Red" and "Government Intervention = Evil Commie" seems to be still alive today.
Interestingly enough 'deleting' your stuff on facebook does not mean that they disappear - but rather that they're marked to be deleted later - and kept for a few months until their garbage collector gets around to it. There was a/. story about that recently.
Well - the internet has become an integral and vital part of many things indeed - so I personally do not believe it should be in the hands of companies at all - rather beside the point - but its the incentive for the rest of it.
The internet works in a rather different manner to many services - not only because we're basing a lot of technology, comminication et cet upon it - but also because its more of a gateway thing - its a means to an end.
The fact that its such a vital area - similar to electricity, the road network, plumbing et cetera makes me think that it shouldn't be handed over on a silver platter to just anyone's whims.
What if the electrical company (assume the only one present in that region) randomly decided that people with more than 2 people in the family should pay more? That's the sort of thing. How do you protest against that? Except for lighting candles , there is no way.
In conclusion - its a very important connection, which you are handing over as a monopoly in certain regions - which are a 'gateway' of means to the end - they're not really supplying any content themselves. Therefore it shouldn't be treated in the same way as any other service.
Ideally, the government represents the people - the best government is one which takes care of its people.
Ideally, the company gets maximum profits possible in the market - the best companies are the ones which reap the most money.
There is no reason for a company to do anything which will hurt its bottom line permanently. Always keep that in mind. If a company decides that it is supporting self-regulated net neutrality, its doing it to 1-up the competitors and get more money.
Now I realise that the government representing the 'people' has long gone - but at least you are allowed to fight back if you want to. Try complaining against large-company-X-which-supplies-the-only-internet-in-the-area and see where that gets you.
If I am paying for an unlimited plan with say 4GB/s - then I want an ultimated plan with 4GB/s. If I am 'saturating the network' in this manner - they should not have offered this plan at those speeds.
Now, if I really am causing a problem - then if they just throttle ALL my speed would be fair. If they decide to throttle (say) most of the internet, but give me great speeds on a sponsored site - that has nothing to do with me using up 'too much' internet.
The actual main idea behind capitalism being a 'good thing' was that there would be a constant influx of competitors - and companies would die out, start over et cetera.
The idea wasn't a corporocracy.
Also, 'another provider' won't work if:
1. Its the only provider in your area 2. The large companies agree with each other on what they're blocking
I'm pretty sure the RIAA/MPAA have enough resources to turn the larger ISPs over to their side, then certain sites and technologies magically start disappearing.
Similarly, putting a keylogger/sniffer/trojan on your own machine for your own private use is A-OK. Therefore most malware should be legal.
It doesn't work that way. People will use it for illegal things, having a "[ ] You are the owner of this phone" checkbox during first install will do nothing for anyone.
Yes there are legit uses for spying on people - they can get it from a source other than the app store.
I don't think its going to be a winner. People have different tastes, and people with similar tastes tend to watch the same program.
So one day you're watching a soppy romantic comedy - because the majority 'vote' at the point in time likes those - and in the next episode you're going to watch the estranged lover murder a few children and throw kittens off roof tops.
So basically either a particular niche takes over the storyboard (which kinda defeats the purpose) - or the flavour/genre of this will be so erratic that few people will truly enjoy it.
Slashdot Mirror
If this person didn't try to resell it and only seeded it for free, then it works out to be circa 0 + 10%
This is the fairest method I can think of:
1. Find out how many people obtained the song from that source
2. Find out that given a set of X people, what percentage would have purchased the song - this is the difficult part, but I'm sure you could aggregate data from online purchasing sites or something. Or even better - grab a bunch of people from the street - give them a pre-decided price, ask them whether the song is worth X dollars.
3. This person pays for the copies of the people would have purchased it otherwise. If its one of those 99 cent songs on itunes, then he probably won't be paying much.
That;s what I thought, then I read it again and:
" the optional download list seen by US Windows users"
Apparently they're not daring to pull that off in Europe, but in the US its fine.
That is all right and true - however the problem comes when you have to try to prove that this law wasn't adhered to.
Lets say for example I go for a apply for a job. I have an interview, and when I leave this potential employer facebooks my name and finds an image of me drunk off my head on a saturday. He phones me and tells me that they chose someone else instead.
How would I be able to prove that it was an infringment of this law? How would I be able to prove that it wasn't because the someone else is better than me? That because he made a better impression in the interview or whatever?
"The same European Commission is, for example, currently conspiring with several other governments and big business organizations to promote even more surveillance and enforcement with ACTA, and denies the European Parliament access to the text of the proposal agreements"
Uh what?
http://boingboing.net/2010/03/10/eu-parliament-votes.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/08/1510255/European-Parliament-All-But-Rejects-ACTA
Note sure what kind of answer you are expecting but:
"Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
In the EU, there is an independant court called the "European Court of Human Rights" which deals with things of that manner. If you honestly feel that the government is infringing your rights in this manner, you can actually sue your government for it.
And in certain cases, the government actually lost and had to pay up and change - so its not just a 'pretend' court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_court_of_human_rights
Because for some reason, if the government puts his foot in the door, its the first step towards "Socialism" and 'the dark side'.
Corporations will fill the 'leader' voice without any consensus or something like that.
Moroever, when you have large comapnies - they can afford to pay for advertising which turns you towards their side. Do you wonder how many "Obama's Healthcare Plan == Bad" complaints came from (or were backed by) private hospitals and insurance companies?
Woah Woah Woah. You actually like socialism?
You're not being brainwashed enough. Go watch another American-made cold-war film, put on some patriotic speeches and let me not here any nonsense like that again!
</satire>
The problem isn't facebook as-such - the problem is how the web is turning into a semantic one - which lets you link information to one another.
If in the old days, I had a website with a few friends which we put images on - then only my friends would know about that. If I had any embarassing images, or images of me getting wasted or something - there is no problem at all.
People have many different aspects - and they would kindly like to keep those aspects seperate. You may be known to your friends as "That person who can belch the loudest", but when you're writing a C.V. - you don't put it over there. People want to keep these information private to certain people- the problem is that with all the links now - you can't really do that.
To give a proper example - take Linkln (which is used for 'professional' networking) and Facebook. You would ideally have a professional 'aspect' being shown there for your employer to see that you went to convention X, worked at company Y for N years et cetera - you don't want your employer to look at your 'wild side' on Facebook.
To summerise the above disjunctions - I may want my different aspects to be avaliable online - but I don't want everyone to be able to access them - and I want to be able to 'erase' mistakes which happened in my past - especially to someone important. People change (and therefore have "A right to be forgotten") and people have different aspects for different people - the way you are towards your friends =/= way you are towards your partner =/= towards your parents =/= towards your employers.
Because once upon a time, during a period of time called the "Cold War", America stood for individual and corporate freedom against a "Government Run" evil communist empire.
And the mentality of "Better Dead than Red" and "Government Intervention = Evil Commie" seems to be still alive today.
Interestingly enough 'deleting' your stuff on facebook does not mean that they disappear - but rather that they're marked to be deleted later - and kept for a few months until their garbage collector gets around to it. There was a /. story about that recently.
...predators with fast reflexes and sharp talons and beaks?
I'm sure Harry Potter will be blamed for India's increase in child-owl related injuries.
Sure it can survive a nuclear assault... but can it survive a lawsuit?
Well - the internet has become an integral and vital part of many things indeed - so I personally do not believe it should be in the hands of companies at all - rather beside the point - but its the incentive for the rest of it.
The internet works in a rather different manner to many services - not only because we're basing a lot of technology, comminication et cet upon it - but also because its more of a gateway thing - its a means to an end.
The fact that its such a vital area - similar to electricity, the road network, plumbing et cetera makes me think that it shouldn't be handed over on a silver platter to just anyone's whims.
What if the electrical company (assume the only one present in that region) randomly decided that people with more than 2 people in the family should pay more? That's the sort of thing. How do you protest against that? Except for lighting candles , there is no way.
In conclusion - its a very important connection, which you are handing over as a monopoly in certain regions - which are a 'gateway' of means to the end - they're not really supplying any content themselves. Therefore it shouldn't be treated in the same way as any other service.
"Allowing your ISP to become the arbiter of your knowledge is not why the government (through DARPA) invented the Internet"
No, It was invented in order to provide redundancy of control in case a surprise attack destroyed a control center.
Ideally, the government represents the people - the best government is one which takes care of its people.
Ideally, the company gets maximum profits possible in the market - the best companies are the ones which reap the most money.
There is no reason for a company to do anything which will hurt its bottom line permanently. Always keep that in mind. If a company decides that it is supporting self-regulated net neutrality, its doing it to 1-up the competitors and get more money.
Now I realise that the government representing the 'people' has long gone - but at least you are allowed to fight back if you want to. Try complaining against large-company-X-which-supplies-the-only-internet-in-the-area and see where that gets you.
You kinda missed the point entirely.
If I am paying for an unlimited plan with say 4GB/s - then I want an ultimated plan with 4GB/s. If I am 'saturating the network' in this manner - they should not have offered this plan at those speeds.
Now, if I really am causing a problem - then if they just throttle ALL my speed would be fair. If they decide to throttle (say) most of the internet, but give me great speeds on a sponsored site - that has nothing to do with me using up 'too much' internet.
The way politics in America works - from what I understood of it - is that as soon as you mention:
Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Government Control, Government Sponsored, Government, or whatever, then the general consensus is to hate it.
We don't want no government controlling MY internet. I'd rather trust big-company-x-with-no-ulterior-motives-whatsoever. God Bless America.
The actual main idea behind capitalism being a 'good thing' was that there would be a constant influx of competitors - and companies would die out, start over et cetera.
The idea wasn't a corporocracy.
Also, 'another provider' won't work if:
1. Its the only provider in your area
2. The large companies agree with each other on what they're blocking
I'm pretty sure the RIAA/MPAA have enough resources to turn the larger ISPs over to their side, then certain sites and technologies magically start disappearing.
Will they be ever available in chocolate?
"Oracle Sues a bunch of people for 1 billion dollars"
Oracle is like a plague. It 'captures' companies for their patents, and does pretty much nothing for their products.
Similarly, putting a keylogger/sniffer/trojan on your own machine for your own private use is A-OK. Therefore most malware should be legal.
It doesn't work that way. People will use it for illegal things, having a "[ ] You are the owner of this phone" checkbox during first install will do nothing for anyone.
Yes there are legit uses for spying on people - they can get it from a source other than the app store.
Or is it?
I don't think its going to be a winner. People have different tastes, and people with similar tastes tend to watch the same program.
So one day you're watching a soppy romantic comedy - because the majority 'vote' at the point in time likes those - and in the next episode you're going to watch the estranged lover murder a few children and throw kittens off roof tops.
So basically either a particular niche takes over the storyboard (which kinda defeats the purpose) - or the flavour/genre of this will be so erratic that few people will truly enjoy it.