My point is that, if the nature of music distribution changes so much, due to unenforcable laws and the rise of technology... perhaps being a 'musician' won't be seen as a career by as many people.
I understand your problems with 'immigrants'. Forgive me if I have little sympathy; The US spends a great deal of effort telling the whole world what a great place of freedom and prosperity it is... is it any wonder you get people sneaking in? Now.. I'm not saying you should like it.. but on one hand, your contry tells the world to become American, and on the other hand, bitches about it.
I think part of the problem, forgive me, is that the assumption is that anyone crossing into the US must like the US better than where they are coming from, which may be true of some places, but certainly not Canada. Having travelled all over the world, I have never experienced as much hassle as I have visiting the Leader of the Free World. Just something to think about.
I use mp3 and it's kin because I'm lazy, and I don't want to drive halfway across town to look for a CD, or wait days for one to arrive by mail, I can get it right now, without waiting, so why shouldn't I? Yes, I realize that distributing this material is illegal... but so are LOTS of things we do.
As for bands struggling to make it.. perhaps they should choose a new career? Who said anyone had a god-given right to make a living doing anything in particular? You deal with the circumstances at hand. If Music doesn't pay out for you, perhaps you need to find a more useful profession.
but exactly how far will that teaching carry into reality if nobody respects the laws in question?
I sat through the computer classes many years ago, listening to the teach drone on and on about how bat 'piracy' was, and how it was illegal and frowned upon.
Quit getting so damn defensive every time some American says something inflamatory.... it makes you look terribly insecure.
If people want to think Canada is a frozen wasteland, GOOD. Believe me, if many people realized what a paradise it is, we'd be overrun with migrants from the US.
Just a valid point here, but the reason we don't have our own shuttle/etc is NOT because we are 'less advanced' it's because we have 10x less population, and therefore, nowhere near the excess cash needed to run such a program.Remember, Canada might be the size of the US, but our population is much smaller.
I like the US and all, fine neighbor to have... however. Regarding this 'border' with Canada.
In all my travels, I have *never* had more hassle at a border than simply driving south into the US. Talk about getting grilled 'Why do you have that laptop? Are you coming down here to work? How do we know you aren't entering our country to work illegally?' 'Because I don't like it there'
Who smuggles drugs into Canada? Aside from the (legally obtained) airplane glue you've obviously been huffing, there are LOTS of drugs in canada. Aside from the marijuana, EVERYTHING is smuggled in. You don't see any poppy or coca fields, do you?
Booze is cheaper in the US; I fail to see why it would be smuggled from Canada.
Cigarettes are cheaper in the US; ditto.
Marijuana? Of course it's smuggled into the US... it's an export. That proves nothing.
It's not Star Wars, and from what I recall, earlier tests failed, and the current one succeeded. That's why they are TESTS. You can only do so much in the lab, and in simulation.
IF earlier ones failed and current ones succeed, that means that the earlier tests achieved their purpose.
He didn't call himself a lawyer, ever.
He did say he was a 'legal expert' on askme.com. People asked, he answered, and his answers were rated very high by not only his clients but by other lawyers on askme.com!
So.... a) He didn't misrepresent anything. He knows a great deal more about law than those asking the questions, that makes him an expert.
b) If even other lawyers thought his answers were good, it's kind of silly for them to come back later and start demoting his answers because he's 15.
c) Sure, after they found out, lawyers come in and ask harder questions, that he can't answer. So what does that prove? Nothing. He wasn't answering difficult legal questions; he was providing clear, concise answers to simply legal questions by Joe Average.
No, I don't think it matters. There may be some other laws unrelated to wiretapping regarding this.. howver.
In the scenario you described, there is no 'sneakiness'. The person in question IS talking to you, and has no expectation of privacy with regards to you. Playing a videotape back is similar to verbally recounting a conversation, except it's more accurate. It's not any sort of invasion of privacy.
Now, if I leave the room, and some of those I'm meeting wiht start talking while I'm not present, even for a moment, then they DO have an expectation of privacy, and my videotaping them may be illegal.
As with spying; using a device to pick up a conversation (or picture) you cannot see without such an aid is illegal; using the same device to simply record or make easier some transaction is perfectly legal.
Wiretapping laws are supposed to safeguard privacy, you got that right.
But if I call you on the phone, you have no expectation of privacy with regards to me. You can expect that whatever you say into the phone, I will hear (and be able to record, etc).
It's only some states that have 'abused' the wording of their anti-wiretap statutes, interpreting recording your OWN phone calls as 'intercepting' the communications. (By classical definition, you cannot intercept something already destined for you)
True enough.
I just know I've heard about this type of interpretation of state wiretapping laws in several states... so much that the common person on the street (even in canada) is under the impression that its' illegal to record a conversation without the permission of all parties.
It's rediculous.... and this court ruling is doubly rediculous. Wiretapping laws were to prevent eavsdropping on telephone conversations....not to prevent people from recording what they are legally hearing.
but 'wiretapping', I thought, by definnition, was when an electronic conversation was eavesdropped on.
Recording a meatspace conversation is not wiretapping..
Especially the 'wiretapping' bs where tape recording your OWN phone call is considered 'wiretapping'.
Canada, lots of other places, you can record any conversation so long as at least one party involved knows about it. I believe the same goes for video. (You can't video tape people in a private place without their permission, but if you are one of the people involved...)
A couple of reasons.
Firstly, because it makes logical sense. Yes, they COULD be rigging all the games, but if the casino still maintains a 98% payout (ie: They are taking, on average, 2% of what's gambled), I find it hard to see how games are 'rigged'. If they fixed one game to win, they'd have to fix another to lose to keep the numbers working, and what would be the point?
Thirdly, because I work for an online casino/sportsbook, and if I thought for a moment they were rigging the games, I'd leave.
And finally, because there is not NEED to rig the games to win. Profit margins for online casinos are higher than those of meatspace casinos; overhead is much lower, and if it ever got out that the house was cheating (and it WOULD get out) you could say goodbye to your business.
Also, if this was some unheard of firm, I would have suspicition. These casinos go out of their way to have their things audited by the most respected firms out there; those firms do NOT get respect by being anything but impartial; they certainly wouldn't ditch that respect for an online casino; they'd stand to clients that are orders of magnitude larger (like the Fortune 500 companies, say). Online casinos are generally NOT multi-billion dollar operations like you might think.
Good point, but if we look at any normal investment (say, public company), risks must be disclosed. Failure to disclose known risks (including forseeable financial problems, acts of god, etc) can also land the company in court.
I'm not saying sue them, but refund some people their money. It's ignorant to say 'free for life' if you know you can't do it. I'd think it would have been obvious from the start (did they really think they'd be handing out free access 50 or 60 years later?).
Really, the word 'free' gets abused, in many contexts, and it pisses me off.
I have to agree, selling something as 'free internet for life' and then welching on it is false advertising, and as much as I know it'll come out of my pocket.. the parties involved should share the blame and be punished, to set an example.
It's about ease of use. If I get the same results, subjectively, whether I pay or not, I won't pay, because it involves less work, and there is no additional reward.
It has to get to the point where the convenience/reward I percieve is greater than that sense of loss I have when parting with my money (and the effort required to do so).
Why pay for what you can get for free? That's the cold, hard truth. I'm not going to pay for something without a reason. And 'well, if nobody pays, we might go out of business' is not a good enough reason.
When everyone goes out of business, and there is only one good discussion site left, then maybe I'll pay to use it, as I have no other choice. Or maybe I'll just go outside and play catch with the neighbor's kids.
I don't pay people to come over and fix my computer because I can do it myself. Am I depriving some kid of his job?
Slashdot Mirror
If MS helps them, they end up producing something that is .NET compliant, reenforcing the need for MS to supply the server end.
.NET gains an enemy.
.net subscriptions that MS owns.
.net
If MS doesn't help them, they do their own thing, and
In the end, it won't be software subscriptions, but
Of course, 5 years from now, they'll file tradmeark suits for all domains ending in
My point is that, if the nature of music distribution changes so much, due to unenforcable laws and the rise of technology... perhaps being a 'musician' won't be seen as a career by as many people.
I understand your problems with 'immigrants'. Forgive me if I have little sympathy; The US spends a great deal of effort telling the whole world what a great place of freedom and prosperity it is... is it any wonder you get people sneaking in? Now.. I'm not saying you should like it.. but on one hand, your contry tells the world to become American, and on the other hand, bitches about it.
I think part of the problem, forgive me, is that the assumption is that anyone crossing into the US must like the US better than where they are coming from, which may be true of some places, but certainly not Canada. Having travelled all over the world, I have never experienced as much hassle as I have visiting the Leader of the Free World. Just something to think about.
I use mp3 and it's kin because I'm lazy, and I don't want to drive halfway across town to look for a CD, or wait days for one to arrive by mail, I can get it right now, without waiting, so why shouldn't I? Yes, I realize that distributing this material is illegal... but so are LOTS of things we do.
As for bands struggling to make it.. perhaps they should choose a new career? Who said anyone had a god-given right to make a living doing anything in particular? You deal with the circumstances at hand. If Music doesn't pay out for you, perhaps you need to find a more useful profession.
but exactly how far will that teaching carry into reality if nobody respects the laws in question?
I sat through the computer classes many years ago, listening to the teach drone on and on about how bat 'piracy' was, and how it was illegal and frowned upon.
Didn't slow me down any.
Quit getting so damn defensive every time some American says something inflamatory.... it makes you look terribly insecure.
If people want to think Canada is a frozen wasteland, GOOD. Believe me, if many people realized what a paradise it is, we'd be overrun with migrants from the US.
Just a valid point here, but the reason we don't have our own shuttle/etc is NOT because we are 'less advanced' it's because we have 10x less population, and therefore, nowhere near the excess cash needed to run such a program.Remember, Canada might be the size of the US, but our population is much smaller.
Did you know that 'Igloo' is simply the Inuit word for 'house' or 'home'?
Most of us live in Igloos...
But it's not called 'Star Wars' as the /. editors seem to think. The Star Wars project was dropped years ago.
I like the US and all, fine neighbor to have... however. Regarding this 'border' with Canada.
In all my travels, I have *never* had more hassle at a border than simply driving south into the US. Talk about getting grilled 'Why do you have that laptop? Are you coming down here to work? How do we know you aren't entering our country to work illegally?' 'Because I don't like it there'
Who smuggles drugs into Canada? Aside from the (legally obtained) airplane glue you've obviously been huffing, there are LOTS of drugs in canada. Aside from the marijuana, EVERYTHING is smuggled in. You don't see any poppy or coca fields, do you?
Booze is cheaper in the US; I fail to see why it would be smuggled from Canada.
Cigarettes are cheaper in the US; ditto.
Marijuana? Of course it's smuggled into the US... it's an export. That proves nothing.
Scary? Kind of. But that IS what a permitier is for, no? To provide a margin of safety?
To define the edge of the controlled land?
It's not Star Wars, and from what I recall, earlier tests failed, and the current one succeeded. That's why they are TESTS. You can only do so much in the lab, and in simulation.
IF earlier ones failed and current ones succeed, that means that the earlier tests achieved their purpose.
He didn't call himself a lawyer, ever.
He did say he was a 'legal expert' on askme.com. People asked, he answered, and his answers were rated very high by not only his clients but by other lawyers on askme.com!
So.... a) He didn't misrepresent anything. He knows a great deal more about law than those asking the questions, that makes him an expert.
b) If even other lawyers thought his answers were good, it's kind of silly for them to come back later and start demoting his answers because he's 15.
c) Sure, after they found out, lawyers come in and ask harder questions, that he can't answer. So what does that prove? Nothing. He wasn't answering difficult legal questions; he was providing clear, concise answers to simply legal questions by Joe Average.
No, I don't think it matters. There may be some other laws unrelated to wiretapping regarding this.. howver.
In the scenario you described, there is no 'sneakiness'. The person in question IS talking to you, and has no expectation of privacy with regards to you. Playing a videotape back is similar to verbally recounting a conversation, except it's more accurate. It's not any sort of invasion of privacy.
Now, if I leave the room, and some of those I'm meeting wiht start talking while I'm not present, even for a moment, then they DO have an expectation of privacy, and my videotaping them may be illegal.
As with spying; using a device to pick up a conversation (or picture) you cannot see without such an aid is illegal; using the same device to simply record or make easier some transaction is perfectly legal.
Wiretapping laws are supposed to safeguard privacy, you got that right.
But if I call you on the phone, you have no expectation of privacy with regards to me. You can expect that whatever you say into the phone, I will hear (and be able to record, etc).
It's only some states that have 'abused' the wording of their anti-wiretap statutes, interpreting recording your OWN phone calls as 'intercepting' the communications. (By classical definition, you cannot intercept something already destined for you)
True enough.
I just know I've heard about this type of interpretation of state wiretapping laws in several states... so much that the common person on the street (even in canada) is under the impression that its' illegal to record a conversation without the permission of all parties.
It's rediculous.... and this court ruling is doubly rediculous. Wiretapping laws were to prevent eavsdropping on telephone conversations....not to prevent people from recording what they are legally hearing.
but 'wiretapping', I thought, by definnition, was when an electronic conversation was eavesdropped on.
Recording a meatspace conversation is not wiretapping..
Especially the 'wiretapping' bs where tape recording your OWN phone call is considered 'wiretapping'.
Canada, lots of other places, you can record any conversation so long as at least one party involved knows about it. I believe the same goes for video. (You can't video tape people in a private place without their permission, but if you are one of the people involved...)
I made several grammatical and spelling mistakes; I'm not fully awake yet.
.....'
That last bit should read 'They stand to lose clients that are orders of magnitude larger
A couple of reasons.
Firstly, because it makes logical sense. Yes, they COULD be rigging all the games, but if the casino still maintains a 98% payout (ie: They are taking, on average, 2% of what's gambled), I find it hard to see how games are 'rigged'. If they fixed one game to win, they'd have to fix another to lose to keep the numbers working, and what would be the point?
Thirdly, because I work for an online casino/sportsbook, and if I thought for a moment they were rigging the games, I'd leave.
And finally, because there is not NEED to rig the games to win. Profit margins for online casinos are higher than those of meatspace casinos; overhead is much lower, and if it ever got out that the house was cheating (and it WOULD get out) you could say goodbye to your business.
Also, if this was some unheard of firm, I would have suspicition. These casinos go out of their way to have their things audited by the most respected firms out there; those firms do NOT get respect by being anything but impartial; they certainly wouldn't ditch that respect for an online casino; they'd stand to clients that are orders of magnitude larger (like the Fortune 500 companies, say). Online casinos are generally NOT multi-billion dollar operations like you might think.
but I was out of town.
Good point, but if we look at any normal investment (say, public company), risks must be disclosed. Failure to disclose known risks (including forseeable financial problems, acts of god, etc) can also land the company in court.
I'm not saying sue them, but refund some people their money. It's ignorant to say 'free for life' if you know you can't do it. I'd think it would have been obvious from the start (did they really think they'd be handing out free access 50 or 60 years later?).
Really, the word 'free' gets abused, in many contexts, and it pisses me off.
I have to agree, selling something as 'free internet for life' and then welching on it is false advertising, and as much as I know it'll come out of my pocket.. the parties involved should share the blame and be punished, to set an example.
It's about ease of use. If I get the same results, subjectively, whether I pay or not, I won't pay, because it involves less work, and there is no additional reward.
It has to get to the point where the convenience/reward I percieve is greater than that sense of loss I have when parting with my money (and the effort required to do so).
Why pay for what you can get for free? That's the cold, hard truth. I'm not going to pay for something without a reason. And 'well, if nobody pays, we might go out of business' is not a good enough reason.
When everyone goes out of business, and there is only one good discussion site left, then maybe I'll pay to use it, as I have no other choice. Or maybe I'll just go outside and play catch with the neighbor's kids.
I don't pay people to come over and fix my computer because I can do it myself. Am I depriving some kid of his job?