It's not that hard to raise $1000. You just need a few supporters. Ask friends, go to pubs and bars, busk in the street, beg online... If anyone came to me and told me they wanted to form a political party, as log as I didn't actually object to their aims, I'd throw in a pound or two and there must be others who feel the same way.
Isn't Ron Paul's position more that federal governmnet should stay out of state business though, rather than governmnet should ekeep out of regulating everything entirely.
I would have googled to be sure, but for some reason a google search results were blocked by the company filter because of "alcohol".
A friend of mine who studied law said that parody can come under the "ctriticism" exception and there was legal precedent to this effect. I suspect that this is somewhat more limited an exception than in the US though. It is certainly the case that British publishers and producers will usually clear it with the copyright holder but this could just be playing safe.
How do you distinguish a voter who abstains in protest from a voter who is happy with the status quo?
There is the option of voting for one of the silly parties. Britain does have The Monster Raving Loony Party, as a genuine political party that nobody would ever vote for except in protest.
Yes it has. It's had a message added saying that single sex relationships are potentially unsafe reading for minors. It's a minor change but it's still a change.
I think there's a general aversion to companies suing individuals. Being sued is not fun, even if you win and get costs covered. Considering the harm done it seems unfair.
We need a much better way to deal with this sort of thing than companies suing.
Fair point. The example I gave was pretty extreme. Still there are less extreme examples. In Euprope, a lot of countries' laws explicitly state that the employees interests should be considered. The US is, of course, not a European country, but the law doesn't state that the employees are not afforded any protection and nor does it explicitly state that shareholder profits are all important. The corporation is what's important. So some companies exist entirely for maximisation of shareholder profits. Not all of them though. And yes, Microsoft may well be in the category that does, but the view expressed in the comment was a little over simplistic.
Europeans show such ignorance about such a diverse country as the US.
Single language, two political parties, about the only variety in cuisine is Mexican influence, every significant monument or museum in one of two cites, two thirds don't own a passport, predominantly Christian, and about three major sports that share roughly equal popularity across the nation do not make a country diverse.
No it's not. Not exactly. The board is meant to run it in the best interests of the company, but this is not always about maximising shareholder profit. For example, an ethical farming company could quite legitimately refuse to sell a parcel of land to a developer which would use the land for purposes counter to the ethics of the company, and could probably be sued by its shareholders if it didn't no matter how much the other company was willing to pay.
LOL! There are indeed some very good American beers. You can get some very good food in Britain as well. But we're talking stereotypes here, not reality.
Always amuses me when Americans criticise our beer and our food. America is the nation of Bud Light, where gourmet cheese comes in a tube. Seriously - a nation that lives of hot dogs, burgers, French Fries and Pizza has no place criticising anyone's food.
As for attractiveness of women - which country has the worst obesity problem? I guess you're a chubby chaser.
But if the penalty for sharing 1000 songs is $1million, or alternatively you could just spend $1000 legally giving those people those songs, surely it's a reasonable deterrent.
I thought it was damages. The idea being that it's impossible to actually calculate how much a pirate actually costs the industry, so we apply a guess.
So - actual damages. We work on the assumption that one copy = one lost sale. It doesn't but that's a different argument.
So since we're looking at damages it should be the amount of damages actually sustained. Each file is uploaded exactly as many times as it's downloaded, so that means an average file is uploaded once per user. That means total cost of $1 per song. Now, this was deliberate infringement so we can multiply by a factor (say 3) to add a deterrent and to compensate for the possibility of not being caught. I'm sure Thomas has more than 24 songs and the RIAA just chose those as a sample, so the damages would actually be greater than $72.
However, in return it needs to be a lot easier to prove infringement. It's not fair that a company should have to pay thousands for a few hundred dollars penalty. Exactly how this is achieved needs more work.
Now, we also have to consider that Thomas lied and falsified evidence. In this case it should also be $3 per infringementWe should also add criminal prosecution for the other crimes, because they are different crimes.
Of course, she is directly responsible for very few of those copies. If she is responsible for subsequent distribution, then shouldn't the person she received the files from be held responsible for her distribution? Or does the record company deserve to be compensated twice for upstream infringement?
Since a typical recipient will download a song exactly once, and each download represents exactly one upload, the average number of uploads per song per user will be exactly one. Scale this up for willful infringement and you'll have a figure of $3 per song. Now, the RIAA suded for (I believe) 24 songs, biut I imagine that was just a number they considered sufficient that they could prove at least some of them. If Ms. Thomas was remotely typical then she would have shared a lot more than that.
Som let's suppose there were 100 songs. Would people really have much sympathy for her is she was forced to pay $300? I doubt it. Would this be a deterrent? Probably.
eyetoy is not really a fair comparison. All that's doing is detecting changes in an image within an area. It's a much much simpler task.
Now, if Kinect sucks then it sucks, and that's a shame, especially since there are ways of dealing with this, but the solution is different from eyetoy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that hard to raise $1000. You just need a few supporters. Ask friends, go to pubs and bars, busk in the street, beg online... If anyone came to me and told me they wanted to form a political party, as log as I didn't actually object to their aims, I'd throw in a pound or two and there must be others who feel the same way.
Can you elaborate? I'm not qute sure I see what the difference would be in a practical sense.
Isn't Ron Paul's position more that federal governmnet should stay out of state business though, rather than governmnet should ekeep out of regulating everything entirely.
I would have googled to be sure, but for some reason a google search results were blocked by the company filter because of "alcohol".
A friend of mine who studied law said that parody can come under the "ctriticism" exception and there was legal precedent to this effect. I suspect that this is somewhat more limited an exception than in the US though. It is certainly the case that British publishers and producers will usually clear it with the copyright holder but this could just be playing safe.
The hat used a single axis. 4 distinct values (5 including the centre position), so there was still an axis free.
Anyone who uses reddit.com. Probably quite a few other similar sites as well.
How do you distinguish a voter who abstains in protest from a voter who is happy with the status quo?
There is the option of voting for one of the silly parties. Britain does have The Monster Raving Loony Party, as a genuine political party that nobody would ever vote for except in protest.
Copyright is a law that restricts my freedom of speech. Parody is an explicit case of free speech in that it's typically criticism.
Yes it has. It's had a message added saying that single sex relationships are potentially unsafe reading for minors. It's a minor change but it's still a change.
I think there's a general aversion to companies suing individuals. Being sued is not fun, even if you win and get costs covered. Considering the harm done it seems unfair.
We need a much better way to deal with this sort of thing than companies suing.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong,
Is it? How so?
Fair point. The example I gave was pretty extreme. Still there are less extreme examples. In Euprope, a lot of countries' laws explicitly state that the employees interests should be considered. The US is, of course, not a European country, but the law doesn't state that the employees are not afforded any protection and nor does it explicitly state that shareholder profits are all important. The corporation is what's important. So some companies exist entirely for maximisation of shareholder profits. Not all of them though. And yes, Microsoft may well be in the category that does, but the view expressed in the comment was a little over simplistic.
Europeans show such ignorance about such a diverse country as the US.
Single language, two political parties, about the only variety in cuisine is Mexican influence, every significant monument or museum in one of two cites, two thirds don't own a passport, predominantly Christian, and about three major sports that share roughly equal popularity across the nation do not make a country diverse.
No it's not. Not exactly. The board is meant to run it in the best interests of the company, but this is not always about maximising shareholder profit. For example, an ethical farming company could quite legitimately refuse to sell a parcel of land to a developer which would use the land for purposes counter to the ethics of the company, and could probably be sued by its shareholders if it didn't no matter how much the other company was willing to pay.
Not all cheddar is bland. While not to everyone's taste a good quality Vintage cheddar is different from the mild cheddar you get in supermarkets.
LOL! There are indeed some very good American beers. You can get some very good food in Britain as well. But we're talking stereotypes here, not reality.
Always amuses me when Americans criticise our beer and our food. America is the nation of Bud Light, where gourmet cheese comes in a tube. Seriously - a nation that lives of hot dogs, burgers, French Fries and Pizza has no place criticising anyone's food.
As for attractiveness of women - which country has the worst obesity problem? I guess you're a chubby chaser.
But if the penalty for sharing 1000 songs is $1million, or alternatively you could just spend $1000 legally giving those people those songs, surely it's a reasonable deterrent.
I thought it was damages. The idea being that it's impossible to actually calculate how much a pirate actually costs the industry, so we apply a guess.
So - actual damages. We work on the assumption that one copy = one lost sale. It doesn't but that's a different argument.
So since we're looking at damages it should be the amount of damages actually sustained. Each file is uploaded exactly as many times as it's downloaded, so that means an average file is uploaded once per user. That means total cost of $1 per song. Now, this was deliberate infringement so we can multiply by a factor (say 3) to add a deterrent and to compensate for the possibility of not being caught. I'm sure Thomas has more than 24 songs and the RIAA just chose those as a sample, so the damages would actually be greater than $72.
However, in return it needs to be a lot easier to prove infringement. It's not fair that a company should have to pay thousands for a few hundred dollars penalty. Exactly how this is achieved needs more work.
Now, we also have to consider that Thomas lied and falsified evidence. In this case it should also be $3 per infringementWe should also add criminal prosecution for the other crimes, because they are different crimes.
Well, it's not. It doesn't mean Kinect gets a pass. It just means it's not a fair comparison.
eyetoy is much simpler than kinect so kinect's lag gets a pass?
No. Where did I say that?
Of course, she is directly responsible for very few of those copies. If she is responsible for subsequent distribution, then shouldn't the person she received the files from be held responsible for her distribution? Or does the record company deserve to be compensated twice for upstream infringement?
Since a typical recipient will download a song exactly once, and each download represents exactly one upload, the average number of uploads per song per user will be exactly one. Scale this up for willful infringement and you'll have a figure of $3 per song. Now, the RIAA suded for (I believe) 24 songs, biut I imagine that was just a number they considered sufficient that they could prove at least some of them. If Ms. Thomas was remotely typical then she would have shared a lot more than that.
Som let's suppose there were 100 songs. Would people really have much sympathy for her is she was forced to pay $300? I doubt it. Would this be a deterrent? Probably.
eyetoy is not really a fair comparison. All that's doing is detecting changes in an image within an area. It's a much much simpler task.
Now, if Kinect sucks then it sucks, and that's a shame, especially since there are ways of dealing with this, but the solution is different from eyetoy.
True.
Although some people do object to for-profit piracy and not for-personal-use piracy which I think is a legitimate distinction.
It was an article on the history of apple pie, which happened to contain 2 recipes.