is simply downloading (and uploading, which is part of using bittorrent) a movie "egregiously insidious" ?
I'm not sure because I'm not a federal judge highly educated in terms of the legal arts. Are you? If not, the only obvious mistake that you could make would be to interpret that phrase in common language.
The rest of your post I agree with: they can ask for whatever they want; but they won't get it; because the amounts will be based on law; but the law still allows for ridiculous damages; and you and I agree those are fucking stupid laws.
Dude, that is total hyperbole. Taking your wife to the movies, with popcorn and a soda, should only cost about a thousand dollars. The only way it would cost $2900 is if you bring a couple children along.
I haven't stopped buying DVDs. I never bought DVDs in the first place! I have literally never bought even one DVD. Mostly, however, that is because I don't like movies -- especially not well enough to watch more than once. I still deal with DVDs often, from Netflix or from friends, then rip and return them, then later watch the video files (mostly TV shows, which I tend to like better than movies). So, I endure DVDs, but won't spend money to "own" them.
Sure, yes, of course you can. The only thing standing in the way would be an existing contract stipulating damages. In the cases of your landlord or cable company you probably have such a contract, limiting damages to actual damages.
In other situations, such as perhaps with your employer, the "contract" is the law, and you get to sue for whatever amount the law affords. I don't know what that is for overtime; it might just be actual damages.
But to answer your ignorant rhetorical questions: yes, you can seek punitive damages against someone who causes your harm, in addition to actual damages.
If you ask me, I think we should just change the law for copyright infringement; but until we do that, courts will treat this kind of lawsuit the same as all the others, some of which you mentioned. There is no difference; we all sue eachother under the laws.
Okay. So you are looking for, what, Slackware (no bloat)? maybe NetBSD (great security)?
Me, I like pretty icons with fancy animated windows and menus. I like browsers that show flash videos and all kinds of bells and whistles. I love bloat, if that's the kind of thing you mean.
Luckily we both have options. Neither of us is stuck in a position where we want to run software that doesn't exist. The only problem is when someone runs a system that they hate, then complain about it. If you are specifically complaining about Windows (I've never owned a Windows computer, only Macs and Linux), then I will happily join you in panning that turd.
Why would I need to like it a thousand times more? (Also, it's 1024, not 1048.) If I like it better, that's what counts. If you want to amortize by something, then that something would be dollars, not bytes. Since computers cost about the same today as they did a generation ago, yet they have so much more power in them, I need only enjoy the power, not enjoy it in proportion to which the power has grown.
(And I just want to say that I meant memory footprint, not hard drive footprint; and I meant OS plus a typical array of apps; and I was just using convenient round numbers; but the point stands any way.)
Basically my point is that I am not sympathetic to most complaints about software bloat. Sometimes, yes, but not usually.
You choose which software to run. If you run software that you think is bloated, and everyone else thinks is swell, then you have only violated your own preferences. There is nothing wrong with the software, it's all in your head. I like my 2-gigabyte operating system much better than the 2-megabyte operating system I used in 1993, and I imagine I would like a 2-terabyte operating system very much. I bet it would do all sorts of awesome stuff, and have the kinds of visual effects that I think enhance the graphical experience. If you disagree, that's fine. Version 1.1 of Linux will still run as well as the day it was released, and you can use it.
As for me, I say bring on the bloat. I can hardly wait.
Your post might is certainly not insightful, seeing as how the article (er, blog post) explicitly mentions that possibility. Thus you should hope for +1 Informative but may get hit with -1 Redundant.
Did I get a +5 for making a mistake and posting to the wrong article? Jeez, we often complain about moderation around here, but usually bad mods mod me down, not up. Mod me -1, Not Paying Attention!
We are sitting here commenting on a Slashdot blog post, which links to a Techdirt blog post, which links to a blogs.journalism.co.uk blog post, which links to this news article.
Without taking a stand on whether it is right or wrong to reveal the ending, I want to make the point that Agatha Christie's wishes are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Authors do not have the prerogative to control the conversations about their works. Whether it is rude or not to reveal the ending is unrelated to the author's feelings on the matter.
Did you just equate hot-replacing a kernel with adding a function to a runtime environment? Or did I not quite understand? If I understand, then that would be more like, say, upgrading a program without having to reboot, which is unremarkable.
"Next time you open that app, it launches the new version!"
Huh. Well, I always thought the subject line was for the subject of the email. Subjects are not the same as summaries. A summary line sounds like a good idea to me, but again, any solution that relies on other people is sure to fail, which is why we pursue solutions that we ourselves can implement.
I'm from Alaska, so my perspective isn't the same as yours. Where I sit, a single tweet by Palin ended the most powerful dynasty in state history....a single tweet, she didn't even campaign for Joe Miller, she just said he'd be swell.
For the sake of all that is good in the world, I hope she is "toxic" everywhere else, but I don't actually think that is the case. Unlike the Republicans, I think you are vastly over-estimating your fellow Americans.
That part of it did, but that's not really the point. The point is that America not only failed to laugh her out of public life, but rather turned her into some kind of weird kingmaker. She is an established public figure whose opinion is, much to my personal horror, widely respected.
Indeed, and totally agreed; the Postal Service is a triumph of government service. It is imperfect, but it goes anywhere, takes almost anything, gets almost everything to its destination, and is dirt cheap. Thank you, Post Office.
Especially thank you for Forever Stamps. That was an idea whose time came... fifty years ago.
So, competition had nothing to do with it; it was the result of a prohibitive law. Is that what you are saying? That government competition is good, but government monopolies are bad?
Slashdot Mirror
is simply downloading (and uploading, which is part of using bittorrent) a movie "egregiously insidious" ?
I'm not sure because I'm not a federal judge highly educated in terms of the legal arts. Are you? If not, the only obvious mistake that you could make would be to interpret that phrase in common language.
The rest of your post I agree with: they can ask for whatever they want; but they won't get it; because the amounts will be based on law; but the law still allows for ridiculous damages; and you and I agree those are fucking stupid laws.
Dude, that is total hyperbole. Taking your wife to the movies, with popcorn and a soda, should only cost about a thousand dollars. The only way it would cost $2900 is if you bring a couple children along.
I haven't stopped buying DVDs. I never bought DVDs in the first place! I have literally never bought even one DVD. Mostly, however, that is because I don't like movies -- especially not well enough to watch more than once. I still deal with DVDs often, from Netflix or from friends, then rip and return them, then later watch the video files (mostly TV shows, which I tend to like better than movies). So, I endure DVDs, but won't spend money to "own" them.
What does the cost of the DVD have to do with it?
Sure, yes, of course you can. The only thing standing in the way would be an existing contract stipulating damages. In the cases of your landlord or cable company you probably have such a contract, limiting damages to actual damages.
In other situations, such as perhaps with your employer, the "contract" is the law, and you get to sue for whatever amount the law affords. I don't know what that is for overtime; it might just be actual damages.
But to answer your ignorant rhetorical questions: yes, you can seek punitive damages against someone who causes your harm, in addition to actual damages.
If you ask me, I think we should just change the law for copyright infringement; but until we do that, courts will treat this kind of lawsuit the same as all the others, some of which you mentioned. There is no difference; we all sue eachother under the laws.
You can start to understand by looking up "punitive damages". Here I'll start you off with the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages. Good luck.
Okay. So you are looking for, what, Slackware (no bloat)? maybe NetBSD (great security)?
Me, I like pretty icons with fancy animated windows and menus. I like browsers that show flash videos and all kinds of bells and whistles. I love bloat, if that's the kind of thing you mean.
Luckily we both have options. Neither of us is stuck in a position where we want to run software that doesn't exist. The only problem is when someone runs a system that they hate, then complain about it. If you are specifically complaining about Windows (I've never owned a Windows computer, only Macs and Linux), then I will happily join you in panning that turd.
Why would I need to like it a thousand times more? (Also, it's 1024, not 1048.) If I like it better, that's what counts. If you want to amortize by something, then that something would be dollars, not bytes. Since computers cost about the same today as they did a generation ago, yet they have so much more power in them, I need only enjoy the power, not enjoy it in proportion to which the power has grown.
(And I just want to say that I meant memory footprint, not hard drive footprint; and I meant OS plus a typical array of apps; and I was just using convenient round numbers; but the point stands any way.)
Basically my point is that I am not sympathetic to most complaints about software bloat. Sometimes, yes, but not usually.
You choose which software to run. If you run software that you think is bloated, and everyone else thinks is swell, then you have only violated your own preferences. There is nothing wrong with the software, it's all in your head. I like my 2-gigabyte operating system much better than the 2-megabyte operating system I used in 1993, and I imagine I would like a 2-terabyte operating system very much. I bet it would do all sorts of awesome stuff, and have the kinds of visual effects that I think enhance the graphical experience. If you disagree, that's fine. Version 1.1 of Linux will still run as well as the day it was released, and you can use it.
As for me, I say bring on the bloat. I can hardly wait.
Your post might is certainly not insightful, seeing as how the article (er, blog post) explicitly mentions that possibility. Thus you should hope for +1 Informative but may get hit with -1 Redundant.
Did I get a +5 for making a mistake and posting to the wrong article? Jeez, we often complain about moderation around here, but usually bad mods mod me down, not up. Mod me -1, Not Paying Attention!
Thanks anyway mods!
We are sitting here commenting on a Slashdot blog post, which links to a Techdirt blog post, which links to a blogs.journalism.co.uk blog post, which links to this news article.
I skipped the blogs and read the article.
You should look up the article on synecdoche.
Without taking a stand on whether it is right or wrong to reveal the ending, I want to make the point that Agatha Christie's wishes are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Authors do not have the prerogative to control the conversations about their works. Whether it is rude or not to reveal the ending is unrelated to the author's feelings on the matter.
Did you just equate hot-replacing a kernel with adding a function to a runtime environment? Or did I not quite understand? If I understand, then that would be more like, say, upgrading a program without having to reboot, which is unremarkable.
"Next time you open that app, it launches the new version!"
Huh. Well, I always thought the subject line was for the subject of the email. Subjects are not the same as summaries. A summary line sounds like a good idea to me, but again, any solution that relies on other people is sure to fail, which is why we pursue solutions that we ourselves can implement.
I didn't know that. Is that true? How do you know? (Are you a police officer or something?)
I'm from Alaska, so my perspective isn't the same as yours. Where I sit, a single tweet by Palin ended the most powerful dynasty in state history. ...a single tweet, she didn't even campaign for Joe Miller, she just said he'd be swell.
For the sake of all that is good in the world, I hope she is "toxic" everywhere else, but I don't actually think that is the case. Unlike the Republicans, I think you are vastly over-estimating your fellow Americans.
That part of it did, but that's not really the point. The point is that America not only failed to laugh her out of public life, but rather turned her into some kind of weird kingmaker. She is an established public figure whose opinion is, much to my personal horror, widely respected.
I wish that would work, but I was paying enough attention during the last few Presidential elections to know it won't.
Were you paying attention to Sarah Palin "displaying her stupidity for everyone to see"? How well did that work out for Democrats?
But I still think we should restore the original filibuster.
Indeed, and totally agreed; the Postal Service is a triumph of government service. It is imperfect, but it goes anywhere, takes almost anything, gets almost everything to its destination, and is dirt cheap. Thank you, Post Office.
Especially thank you for Forever Stamps. That was an idea whose time came... fifty years ago.
So, competition had nothing to do with it; it was the result of a prohibitive law. Is that what you are saying? That government competition is good, but government monopolies are bad?
It is my opinion that moderators should always down-mod any post which contains something like "I'll probably be modded down for this..."
If a post is insightful or interesting, it will stand on its own without the not-so-subtle plea for positive moderation.
Seriously! They're almost as bad as the originals!
Aw, damn, you screwed up the joke. The punchline is "ON WEEEEED?!?"
cf Jon Stewart in Half Baked