You can totally choke people from a distance, you just have to be creative. Shoot something down someone's throat, and they'll definitely choke. It's not easy, of course, but that's why you have to train.
The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans. On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.
The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.
Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like. It’s speaking English that kills you
Agreed. I think the term for sites that are MU-like used to be 'one-click filehosts'. This is only speculation, but I think that the use of terminology like 'file-sharing' might be the result of the anti-P2P campaigns by the RIAA and such, so 'sharing' has become a bit of a dirty word.
The problem with the Judicial here is that they aren't willing to stand up to the other branches using the power that they have. SCOTUS has the power to tell Congress that the CTEA and URAA were unconstitutional, but they refused to do so. The Judicial branch is unique in that their power, at least at the top, is mostly to limit the power of other branches. The worst they generally do is interpret a law more broadly than it is written, which is arguably what has happened with some patent cases.
I don't know about cost - if you have a monopoly on a unique work (regardless of how that monopoly is secured), then you have a right to charge whatever you want
That's the price, not the cost of distribution. Bittorrent represents the cost of distribution of a work.
But I also think you would have difficulty defending BTJunkie as a place to find "out of print" copyrighted works.
I haven't used BTJunkie, but torrent sites in general are a good way of finding rare and out of print works. I'd say that in general, private trackers tend to be better for finding the obscure things, though.
The theatre and initial home release are where most of the money is made. Most films don't make significant amounts of money after a few years, which is why you see them in the bargain bin. Furthermore, even if a film does make constant money year after year, that money is made in the future, and is less of an incentive to the author at the time of writing.
Re:Your right to what?
on
BTJunkie No More?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's ridiculous. Zero copyright means zero copyright infringement. And, even if we just reduce it to something less insane, like 10 years, many people might start to respect the institution since it has stopped disrespecting them.
Re:Your right to what?
on
BTJunkie No More?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It's a very high price compared to cost of distribution, and copyright has gone far beyond the scope required for it's nominal purpose of promoting literary progress. Also, there are lots of things that are out of print, but copyright still covers that.
Can we quit pretending that addiction is a one dimensional thing? There are many factors that go into an addiction. For example, most people that I know smoke have some desire to quit smoking because they feel less healthy. Most people that I know that use facebook don't really have a desire to quit using facebook.
They are prevented from selling to non-Apple readers in a fully functional format without having to remake the eBook.
No it won't. Why would it? It's a tool you don't have to use. What's the put-off?
Exactly, they don't have to use it. By authors who want to sell to everyone choosing to not use it, iBooks author doesn't become the de facto standard it could have been.
It won't, because many authors want to sell to non-Apple readers. Now, they may maintain a large market share for authoring tools, but their current stance assures that they will alienate a significant amount of authors.
How would that money be increased by letting other ebook stores benefit from their app?
To turn that into a profit would require charging for iBooks Author. And iBook tools is such a small niche, income from selling it would be irrelevant compared to actually selling ebooks.
They would profit because could mean that practically ALL of the authors use the iBooks author app and put their books in the iBooks store. That ensures the further sale of iPads and use of the iBooks store. Their decision to be cunts about this means that authors that want to be in all stores will have to use other tools. If Adobe is feeling petty, they might release a similar, standards compliant tool, and make Apple and Jobs out to be hypocrites regarding open standards.
They do have the best because they left the old standard behind.
As I understand it, most if not all of the functionality of the new format was in the latest edition of the ePub standard, making it possibly different for the sake of being different. Also, Apple having the best book store and reader is questionable, and have very little to do with their proprietary ePub fork.
The point of open standards is it benefits those who need easy compatibility between systems of different organisations. Having made the best authoring tool, and having their own successful ebook store, they don't need compatibility with any other organisation at the ebook format level.
The point of open standards is to cut development costs and let products compete on their merits instead of vendor lock-in, which is beneficial to those who actually make quality products. It makes business less of a gamble, and allows a company a better chance to recover if they fall behind. What Apple did is quite similar to embrace, extend, extinguish, although I think they played their hand a bit too early.
I agree, although I see some justification in at least giving those in various industries at least a few years to adapt. It's not necessary, but it's at least courteous to do so.
There is decent business sense in that as well. If they create the best eBook authoring tool, they have the best store, and best readers, they would be making money all around. That others might make money is inconsequential. They have magical products end to end, so it still provides them a lot of income, possibly more since it could make iBooks author the de facto standard. Of course, that would rely on them actually having and continuing to have the best end to end.
That's pretty much the entire idea behind open standards, and ibooks is at least partially based on such a standard.
The image on a T-shirt has no discernible affect on the function of a t-shirt. A batmobile will drive significantly differently than the car before the mods.
Also, copyright law is one of the most distorted laws we have, however it's distorted far, far more in the favor of rightsholders. Copyright is only supposed to cover expressions, so the batmobile should not be covered by copyright at all, just a particular drawing or verbal description of it.
For 10K deaths, you would have to be better orchestrated than 9/11, which had just under 3K deaths. In all likelihood, this stadium would be a weaker target for an equally well orchestrated attack, as this stadium can't fall nearly as far as a 110 story skyscraper.
The costs have been far more than tens of millions, and we've lost more lives to fighting the war on terror than the attacks that started said war. It's also cost us much of our freedom.
Also, please don't speak for the majority or call this bullshit democracy. Most people got tired of this shit years ago, but a few loud assholes have been shouting "IF YOU DON'T DO X THE TERRORISTS WIN" garbage and basically none of our representatives had the balls to stand up against what had quickly became a vocal minority.
Democracy in the sense of distributed power is precisely what leads to innovation. Telecommunications and an educated public are two of the biggest factors in innovation. The more people are able to share, copy and build upon the innovations made by others, the greater the amount of innovation we have.
Small restaurants managed to get an exception for a single radio with the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998, which was a rider of the CTEA. The WTO got pissed off and we still pay some money to Europeans about that garbage, DESPITE the fact that the radio broadcast has already been paid for.
ASCAP are total thugs, though, are basically running a protection racket, and they need to be destroyed.
I'm fairly sure that public performance isn't ACTUALLY subject to compulsory licensing. It's just that virtually anyone who has enough money to bring a frivolous lawsuit is a member of a PRS like ASCAP or BMI. That said, including the 'right of public performance' in copyright seems totally idiotic to me in the first place. It's not producing a copy in a manner that couldn't be widely done before the printing press, and it conflicts with free speech. I can sort of see an argument for radio airplay, but that's about it.
Makes you wonder how they can afford all of that if their claims of how badly piracy hurts their bottom line had merit... Imagine how much more profit their shareholders would enjoy if they saved this money instead. If you want to hit them where it hurts, reveal to those shareholders why they should be outraged about this and why they should be divesting or at least demanding an investigation. It could be as simple as demonstrating they waste more money on lawsuits and political contributions than they gain in return from deterrence of piracy. Executives do have certain legal obligations to look after shareholders' interests.
The legal obligations, specifically fiduciary responsibility, are rather minor, and unless they are engaging in straight up embezzlement, they probably won't even lose their jobs.
However, I don't think it's directly about money anyway. It's about competition. So long as they have strict control, they can keep legitimate competition at bay, even if it costs them potential profits. That's a big part of why they bought the CTEA. Preventing anything remotely new from entering the public domain means that competition can't creep up unless it already has their level of budget. They may not make as much money as they can, but it's a better assurance of long-term survival.
That's nothing, when I asked for a Band-aid for a boo-boo, my parents gave me a generic brand plastic explosive. If they had bought the name brand stuff, I wouldn't have elbows anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
You can totally choke people from a distance, you just have to be creative. Shoot something down someone's throat, and they'll definitely choke. It's not easy, of course, but that's why you have to train.
The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans. On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.
The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.
Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like. It’s speaking English that kills you
Agreed. I think the term for sites that are MU-like used to be 'one-click filehosts'. This is only speculation, but I think that the use of terminology like 'file-sharing' might be the result of the anti-P2P campaigns by the RIAA and such, so 'sharing' has become a bit of a dirty word.
The problem with the Judicial here is that they aren't willing to stand up to the other branches using the power that they have. SCOTUS has the power to tell Congress that the CTEA and URAA were unconstitutional, but they refused to do so. The Judicial branch is unique in that their power, at least at the top, is mostly to limit the power of other branches. The worst they generally do is interpret a law more broadly than it is written, which is arguably what has happened with some patent cases.
That's the price, not the cost of distribution. Bittorrent represents the cost of distribution of a work.
I haven't used BTJunkie, but torrent sites in general are a good way of finding rare and out of print works. I'd say that in general, private trackers tend to be better for finding the obscure things, though.
The theatre and initial home release are where most of the money is made. Most films don't make significant amounts of money after a few years, which is why you see them in the bargain bin. Furthermore, even if a film does make constant money year after year, that money is made in the future, and is less of an incentive to the author at the time of writing.
That's ridiculous. Zero copyright means zero copyright infringement. And, even if we just reduce it to something less insane, like 10 years, many people might start to respect the institution since it has stopped disrespecting them.
It's a very high price compared to cost of distribution, and copyright has gone far beyond the scope required for it's nominal purpose of promoting literary progress. Also, there are lots of things that are out of print, but copyright still covers that.
Can we quit pretending that addiction is a one dimensional thing? There are many factors that go into an addiction. For example, most people that I know smoke have some desire to quit smoking because they feel less healthy. Most people that I know that use facebook don't really have a desire to quit using facebook.
They are prevented from selling to non-Apple readers in a fully functional format without having to remake the eBook.
Exactly, they don't have to use it. By authors who want to sell to everyone choosing to not use it, iBooks author doesn't become the de facto standard it could have been.
It won't, because many authors want to sell to non-Apple readers. Now, they may maintain a large market share for authoring tools, but their current stance assures that they will alienate a significant amount of authors.
They would profit because could mean that practically ALL of the authors use the iBooks author app and put their books in the iBooks store. That ensures the further sale of iPads and use of the iBooks store. Their decision to be cunts about this means that authors that want to be in all stores will have to use other tools. If Adobe is feeling petty, they might release a similar, standards compliant tool, and make Apple and Jobs out to be hypocrites regarding open standards.
As I understand it, most if not all of the functionality of the new format was in the latest edition of the ePub standard, making it possibly different for the sake of being different. Also, Apple having the best book store and reader is questionable, and have very little to do with their proprietary ePub fork.
The point of open standards is to cut development costs and let products compete on their merits instead of vendor lock-in, which is beneficial to those who actually make quality products. It makes business less of a gamble, and allows a company a better chance to recover if they fall behind. What Apple did is quite similar to embrace, extend, extinguish, although I think they played their hand a bit too early.
I agree, although I see some justification in at least giving those in various industries at least a few years to adapt. It's not necessary, but it's at least courteous to do so.
There is decent business sense in that as well. If they create the best eBook authoring tool, they have the best store, and best readers, they would be making money all around. That others might make money is inconsequential. They have magical products end to end, so it still provides them a lot of income, possibly more since it could make iBooks author the de facto standard. Of course, that would rely on them actually having and continuing to have the best end to end.
That's pretty much the entire idea behind open standards, and ibooks is at least partially based on such a standard.
No. It's still a step in the wrong direction. What we need to do is repeal the last couple of copyright acts
The image on a T-shirt has no discernible affect on the function of a t-shirt. A batmobile will drive significantly differently than the car before the mods.
Also, copyright law is one of the most distorted laws we have, however it's distorted far, far more in the favor of rightsholders. Copyright is only supposed to cover expressions, so the batmobile should not be covered by copyright at all, just a particular drawing or verbal description of it.
For 10K deaths, you would have to be better orchestrated than 9/11, which had just under 3K deaths. In all likelihood, this stadium would be a weaker target for an equally well orchestrated attack, as this stadium can't fall nearly as far as a 110 story skyscraper.
The costs have been far more than tens of millions, and we've lost more lives to fighting the war on terror than the attacks that started said war. It's also cost us much of our freedom.
Also, please don't speak for the majority or call this bullshit democracy. Most people got tired of this shit years ago, but a few loud assholes have been shouting "IF YOU DON'T DO X THE TERRORISTS WIN" garbage and basically none of our representatives had the balls to stand up against what had quickly became a vocal minority.
I'd rather have the 'terrorists' than this war on terror garbage.
Democracy in the sense of distributed power is precisely what leads to innovation. Telecommunications and an educated public are two of the biggest factors in innovation. The more people are able to share, copy and build upon the innovations made by others, the greater the amount of innovation we have.
Small restaurants managed to get an exception for a single radio with the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998, which was a rider of the CTEA. The WTO got pissed off and we still pay some money to Europeans about that garbage, DESPITE the fact that the radio broadcast has already been paid for.
ASCAP are total thugs, though, are basically running a protection racket, and they need to be destroyed.
The Nuge would use his hunting bow to settle this, not his lawyers. He'd probably even make some Newt Burgers afterwards.
I'm fairly sure that public performance isn't ACTUALLY subject to compulsory licensing. It's just that virtually anyone who has enough money to bring a frivolous lawsuit is a member of a PRS like ASCAP or BMI. That said, including the 'right of public performance' in copyright seems totally idiotic to me in the first place. It's not producing a copy in a manner that couldn't be widely done before the printing press, and it conflicts with free speech. I can sort of see an argument for radio airplay, but that's about it.
The legal obligations, specifically fiduciary responsibility, are rather minor, and unless they are engaging in straight up embezzlement, they probably won't even lose their jobs.
However, I don't think it's directly about money anyway. It's about competition. So long as they have strict control, they can keep legitimate competition at bay, even if it costs them potential profits. That's a big part of why they bought the CTEA. Preventing anything remotely new from entering the public domain means that competition can't creep up unless it already has their level of budget. They may not make as much money as they can, but it's a better assurance of long-term survival.
That's nothing, when I asked for a Band-aid for a boo-boo, my parents gave me a generic brand plastic explosive. If they had bought the name brand stuff, I wouldn't have elbows anymore.