I think the judge is maybe just realizing that the copywrong system is very broken. If the defendant chooses to fight the allegations the RIAA makes
There is nothing copyright-specific to this case — a financially-strapped side is more likely to fold and settle, than to fight a good fight. Be it copyright infringement, or just about anything else (except landlord-tenant issues, which in Boston are handled by "Housing Court", where the burden of proof is simply always on the landlord).
Everyone is innocent until proved guilty (or found to have breached contract). By awarding the winner of a lawsuit legal expenses from the loser, those found innocent will, at least, be able to recoup their expenses.
That's in theory. In practice it would be even more relevant to the issue at hand, as those accused by RIAA will get their money back easier (if found innocent), whereas RIAA is shrewed enough to ask for legal expenses anyway.
understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people
Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?
The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option — heal thyself, and consider awarding legal expenses to the winners, whoever they are, by default (rather than by special request, as happens now).
They can be. Trouble is, government is the worst even more often...
But that's not really relevant. The important part is, the Government has no mandate to do that — even if it were ultimately successful (which it is not). It represents a Mission Creep.
Further, unlike, say, Chinese or Russian, America's Capitalism is derived not from economical or political expediency, but from human right — to pursue whatever activity, that's not harmful to others. That includes forming corporations and running them in any (non-harmful) way one pleases. Taxation impedes those liberty and should only be spent on military and upholding the law — the government's original mandate. Thus DARPA's funding of the research into resilient communication network (which grew into the Internet) was legitimate. Organizing a "geek city" is not.
everyone knows treating the symptoms is far more profitable than curing the disease.
No, it is not. If I can sell the cure for 1000 times more the symptom-eliminator, I would try to develop it... But I must be safe from demagogues arguing, that my higher price amounts to "gouging", that I spend "too much" on marketing, and demand a "windfall" tax on me. Otherwise, yes, I'll try to stay below radar with simple medicines.
Once again, the point, that Libertarians are making, is not just that government is inefficient at things (although that's usually true too), but that by exceeding its original mandate violates the Individual's liberty (by requiring Him to pay for it) and is thus wrong, even if efficient.
Unfortunately most modern research is far more complex, far more costly, requires substantial facilities to conduct and many people working together to achieve.
And the best way to organize such large groups of people known today is A Corporation.
Not only that bust most modern research must be carefully regulated lest some researcher blinded by free market greed sets of a disaster.
Yes, "carefully regulated" by the loving, caring, all-knowing and otherwise omni-potent government officials, who would've invented it all by themselves, if it was not for their benevolent desire to leave something to us, tro..., I mean, mortals.
A few? Tell me, what is the government doing an acceptable job at, except military and law-enforcement — which even the "nuttiest" Libertarians would leave in the government's domain anyway?
So "showing some love for the Rays" amounts to a flip-flop, much less a disqualifying one?
It is fairly obvious to everyone, that Obama is indifferent to the Rays or any other team (including "his own" White Socks). And I don't blame him for that — I too hold obsession with sport-teams in certain mild contempt.
What is a "disqualifying flip-flop" is lying, that you care... Hillary did that too, but, at least, she picked one team and stuck with it, unlike Obama, who picked a different lie for a different crowd.
Nobody was forcing him to pick vi over emacs, or big endian over little. He did it himself and — by picking whatever was immediately expedient — shown himself to be untrustworthy.
None of those companies would have gotten anywhere without some of the advances at Bell Labs, which was kept going by government contracts.
That Government was/is a customer of some of those firms in no way supports the claim, they owe their existence to the it.
Your choice of terminology suggests that you're a libertarian nutjob.
Aye-aye-aye! Name-calling — how sad... Given the government's wonderful successes in education, highway upkeep, and pensions — wanting it to also expand into healthcare — whose mental faculties are we supposed to question?
Without DARPA taking the initiative with public funds, there would have been no basis for many of the private companies of Silicon Valley.
DARPA's money helped some, but it didn't cause the creation of Oracle, Sybase, SGI, HP, or Sun — the companies, which were developing even before Internet.
Also, DARPA stopped funding Internet funding Internet long before the emergence of giants like Google or Cisco in the valley. Much as Statists would like to attribute good things to the State's intervention, they don't have many legs to stand on.
The opposing argument is that the Executive may get better advice, when the adviser speaks freely — knowing, his speech is protected. Limiting advice-giving to in-person verbal communications would severely impact the efficiency, but you would like all other communications (phone-calls, e-mails) recorded and available for scrutiny by political enemies.
But, regardless of whether you agree or not, the point stands — Sarah Palin is quite computer-literate, certainly more so, than her counter-part.
So since you are so very Concerned over the issue of experience
No, not experience. I was just defending the point, that Obama's support for two competing sport-teams is important (in judging his character) in the absence of much else known about him. If we had much else to go by with him, fine — I am not a sports fan myself. But we don't, and his willingness to please the crowd with such lies is telling volumes.
Appeal to a local sports-team must be a Democratic fixture... When Clintons settled in NY, Hillary claimed to have always been a Yankees fan. Yeah, right... But, at least, she didn't contradict herself in front of Mets fans the way Obama did.
Ok, and how does that help your argument? Are you saying it was ok for Clinton to do that?
I'm saying, the conflict between Executive's ability to speak frankly with advisers and the Lawmakers' desire to know all about such talks has existed since, uhm, very long ago, that's all.
Whoever's side you are on in this conflict, my argument was not whether Palin was right or wrong to get around the law by using Yahoo! Mail, but that she was computer-literate enough to do so.
That Bill Clinton has sent only two e-mails in his 8 years of Presidency — while presiding over an 8-trillion dot-com bust — does not bother Obama's fans, they would've lined up behind either of the Clintons for President in a heartbeat. But that McCain, who is physically unable to type due to injuries, uses his wife's help with computers, is fair target of ridicule for them. Sure...
I always wondered why the inability to lift you arms above your shoulders makes you a better candidate to run a country.
It does not. What made you think, anybody thinks, that it does?
The only reason the said inability was ever brought up was to explain, why McCain is averse to using a computer personally. It was never used to claim, he'll make a better president because of the injury.
Really, you're [sic] big flip-flop citation is about baseball teams? Very important stuff that is.
It is, actually, when one is talking about a neophyte, who started running for President after only 140-something days as a Senator, and whose only prior executive experience consists of chairing a failed local non-profit organization. During his 8 years as an Illinois law-maker, he voted "Present" 129 times (15 times per year — just how many decisions did they make there?) — whatever the excuses for such indecisiveness, the sheer number of the "maybes" is rather large.
We don't know much about Obama, and what we do know, is unflattering...
Heinlein, I see that once again you are posting from beyond the grave. Please stop, Slashdot is for the living.
I seem to remember, Bush's critics foaming at the mouths over the idea of sending Republicans and their children to Iraq... Heck, I even wrote something about it back then.
McCain is not a technophobe or a retrograde — his campaign is using technology quite a bit and has posted its share of YouTube videos (a very cheap way to get once message out). It is not as techno-cool as Obama's, but no less so than Hillary Clinton's or Biden's own campaigns were. Indeed, Bill Clinton — everybody's favorite bubble-creator — has sent a whopping two e-mails during his 8 years in office.
What keeps McCain himself from a computer — as has been repeatedly pointed out since Obama's revolting attack — are the injuries sustained in Vietnamese prison, where his torturers were twisting his broken arms (waterboarding is for wussies). The man can't lift his arms above his shoulders to this day — I wonder, why Obama has not ridiculed his inability to comb his hair by himself...
And if you want to look forward, Sarah Palin — McCain's choice for a vice-president — is an avid e-mail user and has even come under criticism, as she found a creative solution to get around the law, with which the lawmakers aim to infringe on their executive's domain. How good, do you think, is Biden with computers?
Yep... I'm relying on the subtle noise, that my *berry makes on the computer-speakers as a mail-notifier... It is, actually kind-convenient — quiet enough not to wake-up the baby, but noticeable enough not to miss an e-mail.
A person running for the highest office in the land, who is expected to adapt and change as the world does[emphasis mine -mi]
Actually, no, I'd like to know, that who I'm voting for will be who hands the power over to the next president-elect. I don't want an opportunist, who "adapts and changes" with the latest breeze.
But I digress. The point was not even, whether it is Ok for McCain to use his wife's help with e-mail, because his hands hurt (he can't use the comb himself, because his hands were broken by the Vietnamese during real torturing). The point was, whether or not such ridiculing would be a vote-getter or not...
Now imagine 50 million baby boomers with similar level of non-expertise trying to use a PC-based machine
I'd like to see Barack Obama ridiculing these 50 million voters' computer (il)literacy, the way he ridiculed John McCain. Wouldn't that be sure vote-winner, uhm?
The other problem is that, once you put the mechanisms in place that endanger freedom and privacy, they will be misused.
That's certainly correct. Yet another generic observation to be made one the incident, is that our government (State and Federal combined) has gotten so huge, it is self-sustaining. There are enough people on the government's payroll to influence elections by voting and by helping their favorite find dirt on the opposition.
Perhaps future Mars colonists will be republicans escaping the Obama administration.
There is a part of joke in every joke, you know... I'm seriously eying Antarctica, as the polls run me into gloom. It is far closer than Mars and far more hospitable.
Then, as — in the time of my great-grand-children — large cities appear in Antarctica and citizens of that by-then-greatest country on Earth get piled up upon one another, Mars will become the new frontier, where "spreading the wealth" will remain a sick joke for several more generations...
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing copyright-specific to this case — a financially-strapped side is more likely to fold and settle, than to fight a good fight. Be it copyright infringement, or just about anything else (except landlord-tenant issues, which in Boston are handled by "Housing Court", where the burden of proof is simply always on the landlord).
Everyone is innocent until proved guilty (or found to have breached contract). By awarding the winner of a lawsuit legal expenses from the loser, those found innocent will, at least, be able to recoup their expenses.
That's in theory. In practice it would be even more relevant to the issue at hand, as those accused by RIAA will get their money back easier (if found innocent), whereas RIAA is shrewed enough to ask for legal expenses anyway.
Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?
The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option — heal thyself, and consider awarding legal expenses to the winners, whoever they are, by default (rather than by special request, as happens now).
They can be. Trouble is, government is the worst even more often...
But that's not really relevant. The important part is, the Government has no mandate to do that — even if it were ultimately successful (which it is not). It represents a Mission Creep.
Further, unlike, say, Chinese or Russian, America's Capitalism is derived not from economical or political expediency, but from human right — to pursue whatever activity, that's not harmful to others. That includes forming corporations and running them in any (non-harmful) way one pleases. Taxation impedes those liberty and should only be spent on military and upholding the law — the government's original mandate. Thus DARPA's funding of the research into resilient communication network (which grew into the Internet) was legitimate. Organizing a "geek city" is not.
No, it is not. If I can sell the cure for 1000 times more the symptom-eliminator, I would try to develop it... But I must be safe from demagogues arguing, that my higher price amounts to "gouging", that I spend "too much" on marketing, and demand a "windfall" tax on me. Otherwise, yes, I'll try to stay below radar with simple medicines.
Once again, the point, that Libertarians are making, is not just that government is inefficient at things (although that's usually true too), but that by exceeding its original mandate violates the Individual's liberty (by requiring Him to pay for it) and is thus wrong, even if efficient.
And the best way to organize such large groups of people known today is A Corporation.
Yes, "carefully regulated" by the loving, caring, all-knowing and otherwise omni-potent government officials, who would've invented it all by themselves, if it was not for their benevolent desire to leave something to us, tro..., I mean, mortals.
A few? Tell me, what is the government doing an acceptable job at, except military and law-enforcement — which even the "nuttiest" Libertarians would leave in the government's domain anyway?
It is fairly obvious to everyone, that Obama is indifferent to the Rays or any other team (including "his own" White Socks). And I don't blame him for that — I too hold obsession with sport-teams in certain mild contempt.
What is a "disqualifying flip-flop" is lying, that you care... Hillary did that too, but, at least, she picked one team and stuck with it, unlike Obama, who picked a different lie for a different crowd.
Nobody was forcing him to pick vi over emacs, or big endian over little. He did it himself and — by picking whatever was immediately expedient — shown himself to be untrustworthy.
That Government was/is a customer of some of those firms in no way supports the claim, they owe their existence to the it.
Aye-aye-aye! Name-calling — how sad... Given the government's wonderful successes in education, highway upkeep, and pensions — wanting it to also expand into healthcare — whose mental faculties are we supposed to question?
DARPA's money helped some, but it didn't cause the creation of Oracle, Sybase, SGI, HP, or Sun — the companies, which were developing even before Internet.
Also, DARPA stopped funding Internet funding Internet long before the emergence of giants like Google or Cisco in the valley. Much as Statists would like to attribute good things to the State's intervention, they don't have many legs to stand on.
I thought, we call it "Silicon Valley" — and it didn't need government sponsorship to come into being...
The opposing argument is that the Executive may get better advice, when the adviser speaks freely — knowing, his speech is protected. Limiting advice-giving to in-person verbal communications would severely impact the efficiency, but you would like all other communications (phone-calls, e-mails) recorded and available for scrutiny by political enemies.
But, regardless of whether you agree or not, the point stands — Sarah Palin is quite computer-literate, certainly more so, than her counter-part.
No, not experience. I was just defending the point, that Obama's support for two competing sport-teams is important (in judging his character) in the absence of much else known about him. If we had much else to go by with him, fine — I am not a sports fan myself. But we don't, and his willingness to please the crowd with such lies is telling volumes.
Appeal to a local sports-team must be a Democratic fixture... When Clintons settled in NY, Hillary claimed to have always been a Yankees fan. Yeah, right... But, at least, she didn't contradict herself in front of Mets fans the way Obama did.
I'm saying, the conflict between Executive's ability to speak frankly with advisers and the Lawmakers' desire to know all about such talks has existed since, uhm, very long ago, that's all.
Whoever's side you are on in this conflict, my argument was not whether Palin was right or wrong to get around the law by using Yahoo! Mail, but that she was computer-literate enough to do so.
That Bill Clinton has sent only two e-mails in his 8 years of Presidency — while presiding over an 8-trillion dot-com bust — does not bother Obama's fans, they would've lined up behind either of the Clintons for President in a heartbeat. But that McCain, who is physically unable to type due to injuries, uses his wife's help with computers, is fair target of ridicule for them. Sure...
There is no difference.
Godwin's Law has been suspended ever since the term "Bushitler" was coined circa 2001. Didn't you get the memo?
Yes, seriously. Just recall Bill Clinton's jockeying to dodge Congressional subpoenas and invoking Executive Privilege left and right...
It does not. What made you think, anybody thinks, that it does?
The only reason the said inability was ever brought up was to explain, why McCain is averse to using a computer personally. It was never used to claim, he'll make a better president because of the injury.
It is, actually, when one is talking about a neophyte, who started running for President after only 140-something days as a Senator, and whose only prior executive experience consists of chairing a failed local non-profit organization. During his 8 years as an Illinois law-maker, he voted "Present" 129 times (15 times per year — just how many decisions did they make there?) — whatever the excuses for such indecisiveness, the sheer number of the "maybes" is rather large.
We don't know much about Obama, and what we do know, is unflattering...
I seem to remember, Bush's critics foaming at the mouths over the idea of sending Republicans and their children to Iraq... Heck, I even wrote something about it back then.
McCain is not a technophobe or a retrograde — his campaign is using technology quite a bit and has posted its share of YouTube videos (a very cheap way to get once message out). It is not as techno-cool as Obama's, but no less so than Hillary Clinton's or Biden's own campaigns were. Indeed, Bill Clinton — everybody's favorite bubble-creator — has sent a whopping two e-mails during his 8 years in office.
What keeps McCain himself from a computer — as has been repeatedly pointed out since Obama's revolting attack — are the injuries sustained in Vietnamese prison, where his torturers were twisting his broken arms (waterboarding is for wussies). The man can't lift his arms above his shoulders to this day — I wonder, why Obama has not ridiculed his inability to comb his hair by himself...
And if you want to look forward, Sarah Palin — McCain's choice for a vice-president — is an avid e-mail user and has even come under criticism, as she found a creative solution to get around the law, with which the lawmakers aim to infringe on their executive's domain. How good, do you think, is Biden with computers?
Yep... I'm relying on the subtle noise, that my *berry makes on the computer-speakers as a mail-notifier... It is, actually kind-convenient — quiet enough not to wake-up the baby, but noticeable enough not to miss an e-mail.
Actually, no, I'd like to know, that who I'm voting for will be who hands the power over to the next president-elect. I don't want an opportunist, who "adapts and changes" with the latest breeze.
But I digress. The point was not even, whether it is Ok for McCain to use his wife's help with e-mail, because his hands hurt (he can't use the comb himself, because his hands were broken by the Vietnamese during real torturing). The point was, whether or not such ridiculing would be a vote-getter or not...
I'd like to see Barack Obama ridiculing these 50 million voters' computer (il)literacy, the way he ridiculed John McCain. Wouldn't that be sure vote-winner, uhm?
That's certainly correct. Yet another generic observation to be made one the incident, is that our government (State and Federal combined) has gotten so huge, it is self-sustaining. There are enough people on the government's payroll to influence elections by voting and by helping their favorite find dirt on the opposition.
There is a part of joke in every joke, you know... I'm seriously eying Antarctica, as the polls run me into gloom. It is far closer than Mars and far more hospitable.
Then, as — in the time of my great-grand-children — large cities appear in Antarctica and citizens of that by-then-greatest country on Earth get piled up upon one another, Mars will become the new frontier, where "spreading the wealth" will remain a sick joke for several more generations...