You won't be able to answer those, because you're wrong. The song-writers retain the copyright to their songs, UNLESS they have a clause in their contracts that says otherwise.
This states my point exactly. This is PRECISELY what the contracts state now.
BTW, downloading is NOT illegal. Making a CDR of music is not illegal. File-sharing is not illegal. It BECOMES illegal when you do it without the permission of the copyright holder. Note that I state copy-right holder, not creator, as these tend to be two different entities. (If you'd bothered to read the article you're attempting to poke fun at, you would have learned this).
I'm certain any responsible attorney would instruct a musical group not to sign a contract like that, but artists making $100 a week don't tend to have the cash to retain the services of an attorney, and when you have the option to sign your rights away for an opportunity to become famous and make a living off of what you love to do, or continue to struggle, what choice do you really have?
Your information is good, but how many artists know to educate themselves about these kinds of issues BEFORE the contract comes? The most compelling horror-stories I hear are from artists that have been in the business for more than 5 years, the ones that finally learn exactly what they gave up to gain the possibility of fame.
But don't believe me. Google Janis Ian, and read what SHE has to say about the RIAA and copyrights. Janis has been in the business for over 40 years, so I think her oppinion matters a whole hell of a lot more than yours or mine.
Nice argument, but it's total bullshit. Standard contracts require that any existing songs become property of the recording company, and all future songs (up until the end of the contract), are to be considered "works for hire".
Go to azoz.com, and do some reading. If you really believe what you just posted, you're in for a real eye-opening.
It also eliminates the "hanging chad", "dimpled chad", "I was confused and chose the wrong box" bullshit. You go up to the terminal, press the pretty pictures of the people you want to represent you, press some yes and no boxes, look ever the printout to make sure the pictures and the yes/no's are right, and turn in the printout.
For those of you that are whining that this costs actual money, this is your right to vote, for fuck's sake. Anything we can do to make the system faster, more anonymous, and more reliable is a GOOD thing, and worth every penny we spend on it. There is no right that is more important than the right to vote.
Your first two points are valid, although you could just ebay the sucker and get some return on investment. Your second two points are utter horseshit though. Tivo specifically states that it follows the machine UNLESS there is a warranty replacement, then it gets moved to the replacement machine. Tivo dies within warranty period, get new Tivo, lifetime goes to new Tivo.
I agree. DVD's are tremendously successfull, since they're packed with features, at a price that people consider to be fair. I'll willingly pay $15-20 for a DVD (more for nifty extended version stuff). I'm not interested in spending that same amount of money for a CD, hence the trouble the RIAA is having.
NO ONE is interested in taking telemarketing calls. I don't think you understand how telemarketing works, it works by people trying to talk you in to buying something you don't actually need. If you really wanted or needed it, you'd just go out and buy it. If they're not allowed to call you, they lose out on the chance to badger you in to buying something.
I was going to mention that, but I didn't really think it was relevant. You're still "exercising" your options, you're just buying them on margin and using the immediate sale to pay the option cost. You're still paying the money for them, it's just coming out of your gross sale, instead of being out of pocket.
You could try the new software update service that Microsoft has rolled out. That should help with the automated patching. As for the users that never log out, nuts to them. If they aren't logging out, maybe you should fix your policies.
There's no law stating that retailers are required to check ANYTHING before selling a game to ANYONE. If a retailer isn't violate a law, why should they be held accountable? Wouldn't the retailer have a reasonable expectation that a 16-year-old would be able to "handle" a mature game? WHY WEREN'T THE PARENTS PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEIR CHILDREN WERE DOING!
It's not illegal for a companies executives to buy and sell their stock.
It is if they're engaging in insider trading, which is what people are alluding to.
I don't see people complaining about Matthew Szulik selling stocks for Red Hat, Ali Jenab for VA Linux.
I don't see any of those people engaging themselves in questionable lawsuits, and then selling off large percentages of shares when the price goes up either.
You obviously have no idea how the options or the stock market works.
Generally, stock is given out to employees as options. An option means exactly that, you have the OPTION to buy a certain number of shares, generally at a very low price, without having to purchase on the open market. Those shares that are listed as options are allocated to you, no one else can buy them. However you have to EXERCISE the options, (actually pay the money for them) before you can sell them. There's only two reasons to exercise options, either the time period to exercise is about to expire, so you have to buy them or lose 'em, or you're about to sell them off.
Let me tell you something about AT&T's "ticketing system". It's quite possibly the most worthless piece of crap in existence. In fact, I've memorized the key sequence to skip it so I can talk to a real person. (Not much better, since AT&T replaced the workforce with poorly trained, non-union employees, but still better than the damn automatic system).
Benign
4. Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless: a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
5. Medicine. Of no danger to health; not recurrent or progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.
Hence, non harmful and benign mean the SAME DAMN THING.
The executive branch has a lot of influence on the legislative branch, due to the fact that the executive has veto power. (You insert and pass this anti-RIAA bill, and I'll rubber-stamp the next "homeland security" bill you want). If you don't think this kind of stuff happens all the time, you're stupid and/or high.
Another thing to keep in mind, the Executive appoints the members of the Supreme court.
Well, the key sequence should do a force eject. If not, smack the user in the head for being a moron, and make sure they get an adapter if they want to stick tiny cd's in there again.
Slashdot Mirror
You won't be able to answer those, because you're wrong. The song-writers retain the copyright to their songs, UNLESS they have a clause in their contracts that says otherwise.
This states my point exactly. This is PRECISELY what the contracts state now.
BTW, downloading is NOT illegal. Making a CDR of music is not illegal. File-sharing is not illegal. It BECOMES illegal when you do it without the permission of the copyright holder. Note that I state copy-right holder, not creator, as these tend to be two different entities. (If you'd bothered to read the article you're attempting to poke fun at, you would have learned this).
I'm certain any responsible attorney would instruct a musical group not to sign a contract like that, but artists making $100 a week don't tend to have the cash to retain the services of an attorney, and when you have the option to sign your rights away for an opportunity to become famous and make a living off of what you love to do, or continue to struggle, what choice do you really have?
Your information is good, but how many artists know to educate themselves about these kinds of issues BEFORE the contract comes? The most compelling horror-stories I hear are from artists that have been in the business for more than 5 years, the ones that finally learn exactly what they gave up to gain the possibility of fame.
But don't believe me. Google Janis Ian, and read what SHE has to say about the RIAA and copyrights. Janis has been in the business for over 40 years, so I think her oppinion matters a whole hell of a lot more than yours or mine.
Nice argument, but it's total bullshit. Standard contracts require that any existing songs become property of the recording company, and all future songs (up until the end of the contract), are to be considered "works for hire".
Go to azoz.com, and do some reading. If you really believe what you just posted, you're in for a real eye-opening.
It also eliminates the "hanging chad", "dimpled chad", "I was confused and chose the wrong box" bullshit. You go up to the terminal, press the pretty pictures of the people you want to represent you, press some yes and no boxes, look ever the printout to make sure the pictures and the yes/no's are right, and turn in the printout.
For those of you that are whining that this costs actual money, this is your right to vote, for fuck's sake. Anything we can do to make the system faster, more anonymous, and more reliable is a GOOD thing, and worth every penny we spend on it. There is no right that is more important than the right to vote.
Warranty period is 1-year. Go read it again, dipshit.
Your first two points are valid, although you could just ebay the sucker and get some return on investment. Your second two points are utter horseshit though. Tivo specifically states that it follows the machine UNLESS there is a warranty replacement, then it gets moved to the replacement machine. Tivo dies within warranty period, get new Tivo, lifetime goes to new Tivo.
He forgot step #2, "Buy $299 lifetime subscription".
I agree. DVD's are tremendously successfull, since they're packed with features, at a price that people consider to be fair. I'll willingly pay $15-20 for a DVD (more for nifty extended version stuff). I'm not interested in spending that same amount of money for a CD, hence the trouble the RIAA is having.
NO ONE is interested in taking telemarketing calls. I don't think you understand how telemarketing works, it works by people trying to talk you in to buying something you don't actually need. If you really wanted or needed it, you'd just go out and buy it. If they're not allowed to call you, they lose out on the chance to badger you in to buying something.
I'm just dying to know -- how is it that "political correctness" has spoiled Star Wars in particular?
Greedo shooting first.
'Nuff said.
No, he brings balance by wiping out all of the jedi.
True balance is an equal ratio of good/evil.
I was going to mention that, but I didn't really think it was relevant. You're still "exercising" your options, you're just buying them on margin and using the immediate sale to pay the option cost. You're still paying the money for them, it's just coming out of your gross sale, instead of being out of pocket.
You could try the new software update service that Microsoft has rolled out. That should help with the automated patching. As for the users that never log out, nuts to them. If they aren't logging out, maybe you should fix your policies.
There's no law stating that retailers are required to check ANYTHING before selling a game to ANYONE. If a retailer isn't violate a law, why should they be held accountable? Wouldn't the retailer have a reasonable expectation that a 16-year-old would be able to "handle" a mature game? WHY WEREN'T THE PARENTS PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEIR CHILDREN WERE DOING!
It's not illegal for a companies executives to buy and sell their stock.
It is if they're engaging in insider trading, which is what people are alluding to.
I don't see people complaining about Matthew Szulik selling stocks for Red Hat, Ali Jenab for VA Linux.
I don't see any of those people engaging themselves in questionable lawsuits, and then selling off large percentages of shares when the price goes up either.
You obviously have no idea how the options or the stock market works.
Generally, stock is given out to employees as options. An option means exactly that, you have the OPTION to buy a certain number of shares, generally at a very low price, without having to purchase on the open market. Those shares that are listed as options are allocated to you, no one else can buy them. However you have to EXERCISE the options, (actually pay the money for them) before you can sell them. There's only two reasons to exercise options, either the time period to exercise is about to expire, so you have to buy them or lose 'em, or you're about to sell them off.
Let me tell you something about AT&T's "ticketing system". It's quite possibly the most worthless piece of crap in existence. In fact, I've memorized the key sequence to skip it so I can talk to a real person. (Not much better, since AT&T replaced the workforce with poorly trained, non-union employees, but still better than the damn automatic system).
The dictionary is your friend.
non
Not: noncombatant.
harmful
Causing or capable of causing harm; injurious.
Benign
4. Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless: a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
5. Medicine. Of no danger to health; not recurrent or progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.
Hence, non harmful and benign mean the SAME DAMN THING.
No, humans were referred to as a virus.
The executive branch has a lot of influence on the legislative branch, due to the fact that the executive has veto power. (You insert and pass this anti-RIAA bill, and I'll rubber-stamp the next "homeland security" bill you want). If you don't think this kind of stuff happens all the time, you're stupid and/or high.
Another thing to keep in mind, the Executive appoints the members of the Supreme court.
Well, the key sequence should do a force eject. If not, smack the user in the head for being a moron, and make sure they get an adapter if they want to stick tiny cd's in there again.
Or if you know how macs work, and know that a simple keystroke on boot-up will kick a disc out of the drive.
Or hell, you could have just read the manual, but who does that?
Have you ever heard of a cupholder? You know, that thing you can stick drinks in to?
That's the point, dipshit. It's to let us all know what the "copy protected" CD's are, so we can refuse to buy defective media.
The use of "perfect digital copy" is a bullshit statement. a 128k mp3 is NOT a perfect copy.
How about don't host it on a website,.. in California. This is the CALIFONRIAA Supreme court, not the SCOTUS.