It would make sense that he is to be treated with the full extent of the law for what he did.
The law states (roughly) that searches must be either with permission, a search warrant, or where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Most people here consider this an illegal search and an invasion of privacy. Yes, this guy is guilty. Other people who are innocent are having their privacy violated by these guys.
Then you have a problem that freedom of speech in the US trumps the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent. This sort of situation is likely to happen even if the evidence is obtained legitimately.
The relative importance of rights and freedoms on the rare occasions when they collide is, of course, a matter for discussion. In other countries, the balance between these rights is different.
This is already dealt with for record sales. The session musicians have been paid for their time, the original sample has either been paid for by a flat fee or an agreed portion of sales.
It's not about the RIAA. Another organisation would be set up(presumably bands would need to be registered), and while all RIAA labels would be a member of this, independent bands and labels would also be free to join with no commitment to anytone.
If they want to play one track a year, then they can simply pay a specific royalty to the copyright holder.
As for 16 bit, nobody uses all that dynamic range anyway. So 16bit/44.1khz is entirely good enough for listening.
That's actually the biggest problem there. If they did use that whole range, CD audio would be flawless. Trouble is they usually compress it so it's all squeezed into a much smaller range.
At least so I understand it. My hearing sucks, so I'm quite happy with low bitrate mp3s:)
You think you have trouble? Try living in a constitutional monarchy. There's no way that will fit in easily with the Civilization model of political systems!
You can get a certain amount of effective base load from offshore windfarms. It's always going to be windy somewhere, especially out at sea. But you are right. It makes most sense to use these to generate and store energy. Exactly how doesn't really matter. Pump water up hills, or use flywheels or big springs or whatever.
This isn't the law. It's people discussing potential legislation.
Being able to suggest unpopular, possibly unpleasant, and even downright moronic ideas isn't a flaw of the US. It's a strength. It's all about freedom of speech.
Of course, the media industry thinks the world owes them a living and control over everyone else's property, so it seems a little harsh to judge the slashbots too harshly over this.
If people know how to use the resource correctly, wikipedia is a useful tool. It aggregates and summarises a lot of sources which can then be anlysed individually for bias and reliability.
If I had my way, Wikipedia would contain a few locked explicitely and well known fake articles where every source explained that the article was a fake to teach people to check the sources...
its always the same, the few spoil the experience for the masses and the overreaciton that ensues will be far worse than anything attempted so far, once again thanks to the likes of you and your answers-
Olay. So the MPA wil loverreact, and that's somehow my fault?
Okay.
Gotta wonder what's going to happen to all my DVDs though and how the MPAA will stop those from working.
our lame "make better movies or music" excuse does nto justify you illegally obtaining
Yes it does.
Content filtering is no different than any other means used by retail distribution networks to stop piracy, it is possible and will work
It is different. It's requiring a third party to protect their content. And it's unlikely to work. Encryption yes a formidable opponent in stopping piracy but if you are believing encrypted traffic cant be cracked with those who have resources unavailable to the likes of you, you are fooling yourself, its happening now.
Good encryption is uncrackable with every computer that could ever be produced. The MPAA don't have that sort of resource available.
Your "you cant own information" line of reasoning is bunk and not only is data information but it is property and just because you penguin fuckers think its not, does not mean your right, look around, the courts prove otherwise on a daily basis
I pirate haeps of shit disproving this on a daily basis
An ISP is no different in this regard as any other delivery system like Fed Ex or UPS etc. and if they were foud to be instrumental in facilitating world wide illegal distribution of pirated goods, you can bet there will be and occassionaly is law enforcement involvement
They probably are instrumental in facilitating worldwide illegal distribution of pirated goods. They assume whatever they're given is legal. If they ask too many questions they'll become liable if it is illegal so they tend not to.
Well, this will be a little harder. After the whole deCSS fiasco, there's a lot more opposition to any increas ein copyright protexction. In some ways this can be seen to be an own goal.
NASA should do what Congress tells them and not try and work around it. Congress - for whatever reason - wants them to avoid manned Mars missions. NASA should do so. It's not NASA's position to second guess the administration.
Yes, this is exactly the same shortsighted thinking that led to Russia getting a headstart in the Space Race, but if Congress wants to be shortsighted, then let them look foolish when China puts a man on Mars but the harm done will still be quite small.
I have a networked device connected to my HDTV. It's called a cable box. I also have a network media player which I could imagine the next generation having some sort of internet download capability.
PCs are a stop gap measure. When more specialised technology becomes cheap enough and consumer friendly features evolve, and expensive general purpose PC will no longer be needed for this.
Actually, I think most of the weights and measures stuff is ultimately the responsibility of the British. As far as I understand it, the EU has rules that we should all use SI, but exactly how this is enforced and what (if any) fines are imposed is determined by the member states. Of course, the ta loid press loves to blame the EU for everything.
I disagree. The real damage potential from casual (that is, non-commercial) copyright infringement comes from the snowball effect, not the first isolated copy, and anyone putting up a track on P2P knows they are inviting that effect to start.
Perhaps, but ultimately the person responsible is the uploader. not the person who uploaded to them.
Lets put it this way - Should I be able to use as a defence "Yes, I did upload that file, but I downloaded it from Jammie Thomas, so it's her fault". Now, I can see three results from that:
The court accepts that and I get away scott free.
The court rejects that and holds me responsible, so the RIAA gets damages for the same infringement twice.
The court decides that I'm responsible for my illegal actions and not the person who provided me with the file.
The first seems unlikey, the second seems unfair, so the only correct option is the third.
Well, it's possibly reasonable to go for a high number. The RIAA is wronged and therefore shouldn't lose out. However, there is an upper limit to how many songs you might expect to have uploaded. Assuming most all songs on all p2p networks are pirated then any song on any computer will have been uploaded (on average) slightly less than once.
However, we can also assume that some people upload more than that. How many times? Once? Twice? I could imagine ten times. I'd say more than that per file is a little implausible. Now, I see absolutely no reason why someone should be held liable for the infringement caused by others. If they're causing a loss then they should be sued. Otherwise we should be suing the record shops for ingringement because there's no way of knowing how many buyers will copy the CDs.
So that means a total loss of $10 per song. Triple dmaages seem to be typical for willful infringement, so that would be $30 per song. 24 songs = $720. Although I imagine these 24 songs were just taken as a sample... Let's suppose there are 1000 songs being shared. $30 000. Then we're back into pretty heavy dmaages territory but at least it's still in the realm of plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but then he wouldn't be able to show how smart he was working out it was a python reference.
I bet KITT actually used electornics canibalised from a cylon helmet. It's not unknown for props guys to recycle.
It would make sense that he is to be treated with the full extent of the law for what he did.
The law states (roughly) that searches must be either with permission, a search warrant, or where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Most people here consider this an illegal search and an invasion of privacy. Yes, this guy is guilty. Other people who are innocent are having their privacy violated by these guys.
Then you have a problem that freedom of speech in the US trumps the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent. This sort of situation is likely to happen even if the evidence is obtained legitimately.
The relative importance of rights and freedoms on the rare occasions when they collide is, of course, a matter for discussion. In other countries, the balance between these rights is different.
The artist/band attributed.
This is already dealt with for record sales. The session musicians have been paid for their time, the original sample has either been paid for by a flat fee or an agreed portion of sales.
It's not about the RIAA. Another organisation would be set up(presumably bands would need to be registered), and while all RIAA labels would be a member of this, independent bands and labels would also be free to join with no commitment to anytone.
If they want to play one track a year, then they can simply pay a specific royalty to the copyright holder.
Well, most of it. Fairly neutral about whether the labels get a royalty from airplay but the performers certainly should.
Can be refilled. Runs cartridges until they're dry. Built like a tank.
Wish they still made printers like that. I'd like something as robust but faster and higher resolution.
As for 16 bit, nobody uses all that dynamic range anyway. So 16bit/44.1khz is entirely good enough for listening.
That's actually the biggest problem there. If they did use that whole range, CD audio would be flawless. Trouble is they usually compress it so it's all squeezed into a much smaller range.
At least so I understand it. My hearing sucks, so I'm quite happy with low bitrate mp3s:)
You think you have trouble? Try living in a constitutional monarchy. There's no way that will fit in easily with the Civilization model of political systems!
You can get a certain amount of effective base load from offshore windfarms. It's always going to be windy somewhere, especially out at sea. But you are right. It makes most sense to use these to generate and store energy. Exactly how doesn't really matter. Pump water up hills, or use flywheels or big springs or whatever.
This isn't the law. It's people discussing potential legislation.
Being able to suggest unpopular, possibly unpleasant, and even downright moronic ideas isn't a flaw of the US. It's a strength. It's all about freedom of speech.
Of course, the media industry thinks the world owes them a living and control over everyone else's property, so it seems a little harsh to judge the slashbots too harshly over this.
If people know how to use the resource correctly, wikipedia is a useful tool. It aggregates and summarises a lot of sources which can then be anlysed individually for bias and reliability.
If I had my way, Wikipedia would contain a few locked explicitely and well known fake articles where every source explained that the article was a fake to teach people to check the sources...
its always the same, the few spoil the experience for the masses and the overreaciton that ensues will be far worse than anything attempted so far, once again thanks to the likes of you and your answers-
Olay. So the MPA wil loverreact, and that's somehow my fault?
Okay.
Gotta wonder what's going to happen to all my DVDs though and how the MPAA will stop those from working.
I've found most memory cards are indestructible. I've frequently washed comact flash cards. I'm surprised the memory stick didn't survive.
True.
Possibly over-paranoid of them though. The RIAA/MPAA would have to prove that illegal distribution was the main purpose of this device.
our lame "make better movies or music" excuse does nto justify you illegally obtaining
Yes it does.
Content filtering is no different than any other means used by retail distribution networks to stop piracy, it is possible and will work
It is different. It's requiring a third party to protect their content. And it's unlikely to work.
Encryption yes a formidable opponent in stopping piracy but if you are believing encrypted traffic cant be cracked with those who have resources unavailable to the likes of you, you are fooling yourself, its happening now.
Good encryption is uncrackable with every computer that could ever be produced. The MPAA don't have that sort of resource available.
Your "you cant own information" line of reasoning is bunk and not only is data information but it is property and just because you penguin fuckers think its not, does not mean your right, look around, the courts prove otherwise on a daily basis
I pirate haeps of shit disproving this on a daily basis
An ISP is no different in this regard as any other delivery system like Fed Ex or UPS etc. and if they were foud to be instrumental in facilitating world wide illegal distribution of pirated goods, you can bet there will be and occassionaly is law enforcement involvement
They probably are instrumental in facilitating worldwide illegal distribution of pirated goods. They assume whatever they're given is legal. If they ask too many questions they'll become liable if it is illegal so they tend not to.
Congress will grant it.
Well, this will be a little harder. After the whole deCSS fiasco, there's a lot more opposition to any increas ein copyright protexction. In some ways this can be seen to be an own goal.
NASA should do what Congress tells them and not try and work around it. Congress - for whatever reason - wants them to avoid manned Mars missions. NASA should do so. It's not NASA's position to second guess the administration.
Yes, this is exactly the same shortsighted thinking that led to Russia getting a headstart in the Space Race, but if Congress wants to be shortsighted, then let them look foolish when China puts a man on Mars but the harm done will still be quite small.
I have a networked device connected to my HDTV. It's called a cable box. I also have a network media player which I could imagine the next generation having some sort of internet download capability.
PCs are a stop gap measure. When more specialised technology becomes cheap enough and consumer friendly features evolve, and expensive general purpose PC will no longer be needed for this.
Quite. MS are going to cash in whether HD-DVD or their download service is a success. All they really want is for Blu-Ray to fail.
Actually, I think most of the weights and measures stuff is ultimately the responsibility of the British. As far as I understand it, the EU has rules that we should all use SI, but exactly how this is enforced and what (if any) fines are imposed is determined by the member states. Of course, the ta loid press loves to blame the EU for everything.
Perhaps, but ultimately the person responsible is the uploader. not the person who uploaded to them.
Lets put it this way - Should I be able to use as a defence "Yes, I did upload that file, but I downloaded it from Jammie Thomas, so it's her fault". Now, I can see three results from that:
- The court accepts that and I get away scott free.
- The court rejects that and holds me responsible, so the RIAA gets damages for the same infringement twice.
- The court decides that I'm responsible for my illegal actions and not the person who provided me with the file.
The first seems unlikey, the second seems unfair, so the only correct option is the third.Well, it's possibly reasonable to go for a high number. The RIAA is wronged and therefore shouldn't lose out. However, there is an upper limit to how many songs you might expect to have uploaded. Assuming most all songs on all p2p networks are pirated then any song on any computer will have been uploaded (on average) slightly less than once.
However, we can also assume that some people upload more than that. How many times? Once? Twice? I could imagine ten times. I'd say more than that per file is a little implausible. Now, I see absolutely no reason why someone should be held liable for the infringement caused by others. If they're causing a loss then they should be sued. Otherwise we should be suing the record shops for ingringement because there's no way of knowing how many buyers will copy the CDs.
So that means a total loss of $10 per song. Triple dmaages seem to be typical for willful infringement, so that would be $30 per song. 24 songs = $720. Although I imagine these 24 songs were just taken as a sample... Let's suppose there are 1000 songs being shared. $30 000. Then we're back into pretty heavy dmaages territory but at least it's still in the realm of plausible.