I also practice the "real world of litigation" and that comment is quite arrogant - not to mention inaccurate. Otherwise, both briefs in legal cases would be identical. My experience is that the parties' briefs tend to be different (different does not mean "radical"). Every time. Maybe that's not how they do it in NY.
As for the RIAA vs. the world, we'll just have to see how this is ultimately settled by the appellate courts, not some trial judge. Many of the issues remain unsettled. But my money is on the copyright holder, his lawyer, and his political contributions, and not some pro se fair user.
That just because some lawyer on Slashdot - obviously with a pro-fair use bias or why would he be frequenting/.? - says something is true doesn't make it true (which includes this post). The EFF's brief is persuasive by definition, not an objective brief that a junior associate would present to a senior partner wanting a real world view of the law. Law schools teach both, the objective legal brief and the persuasive one. A persuasive brief argues one side by design. To suggest that one side's view in a persuasive brief constitutes "what US copyright law really says," is patently absurd.
Frankly, if the EFF's brief was a fair, objective view of the law one could argue that such a lawyer was committing malpractice. Effective advocacy, whether in a contract negotiation or litigation, means asking for more than you really want or think you deserve so you can compromise and look reasonable. If you want a million dollars, you don't ask for a million, you ask for three and negotiate downward.
For the record, I think the RIAA is generally full of shit and is abusing the legal and political process with its criminalization of intellectual property law and using law enforcement as its personal security team. But let's not let what we want the law to be get confused with what it really is.
Spencer's Gifts has been selling these for cool bachelor pads since the 1970's, man. What next, are we going to use lava lamps and blacklights for data transmission, man?
First off, labour is a commodity like anything else, and markets don't have morality.
I completely disagree with the Marxist notion that labor=capital or a commodity. We don't have time for this debate. Suffice it to say we disagree.
Incidentally, you don't get to call yourself a libertarian if you're against unions -- a union is no different than a corporation. A corporation is a tool to make money for shareholders, a union is a tool to make money for union members.
Actually there is one huge difference. If employees get together to bargain, it's called a union. If corporations do it, it's called "collusion" and it's a per se antitrust violation. A libertarian believes that two corporations should be able to get together just like unions can and set wages. But under the modern paradigm, that would be a violation of antitrust law. The theory of antitrust, by the way, is that collusion of players in a market actually destroys the market. Collusion is cheating, so to speak, and not really a "free" market when two players bypass it and set their own private prices or wages. Collective bargaining by a union does the same thing, so don't call labor a free market until either both sides can or cannot collectively bargain. When only one side can, there is nothing "free' about it. So a libertarian would say, "yes, unions should be legal, but corporations should be able to collectively bargain as well, so get rid of antitrust law."
See, this is how I know that you're a neocon, and not a libertarian. Libertarians understand that "intellectual property" is a function of government regulation.
First off, stop misusing the term "neocon." It is only meant to differentiate a more modern foreign policy from that of earlier conservatives. I find it highly unlikely you could tell a paleocon from a neocon based on his stand on IP.
Secondly, the Constitution speaks directly to IP in Article I. It says Congress shall legislate on the matter. It's not exactly legislative overreaching when the Constitution commands it. Of course, a "real" libertarian believes the right to swing your fist ends where his nose begins. So you have the right to whatever you want to do, but not steal from him. A libertarian who owns a patent to a drug would likely feel an IP law is no different than a burglary statute protecting his TV. I know Slashdotters don't like this analogy, but libertarians believe the chief purpose of a government is to protect their shit!
In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase both to themselves and to the society in general. Free markets require educated, thoughtful consumers.
According to what, the Nancy Pelosi Theory of Economics? Seriously, what school of economics defines a free market this way? You can criticize free market capitalism all you want, but you can't redefine what a free market is to coincide with your left wing world view. I had a Poli Sci professor who tried to redefine democracy this way because he didn't like its results. That was also arrogant.
According to Wikipedia, not exactly written by those at the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute,
A free market is a market in which there are prices of goods and services, and these prices are set by sellers, based on what they can afford in relation to what affluent people are able to pay.
I'm still looking for the part about it requiring the social conscience of its participants.
We have people who shop at Wal*Mart and think it's great that pickles only cost $3 instead of $3.50.
And why isn't is great? Poor people can now afford groceries. Because you don't like Wal-Mart's labor practices? You feel that I should pay for a grocery checker's health insurance via higher prices or the market isn't really free? What does that have to do with the free market?
Slashdotters are often masters of hypocrisy: "libertarianism for me, socialism for you." If you really were a libertarian, you'd believe that a company should pay employees whatever it desires, whether it is Circuit City or Microsoft. Once you start substituting your "wage slave" nanny morality or your "nationalize intellectual property" evangelism for free market behaviors, you really start sounding more like a liberal than a libertarian. And that's fine, just be intellectually honest about it. Simply because it is your will and not the government's will assailing Circuit City, the theory behind it is still nannyism, your morality substituted for that of the wage market's (which you are confusing for the free market in goods). Call that "libertarianism" all you want, but it sounds a lot more like the libs from the labor unions and the Democrats in Congress rather than the Cato institute. If you disagree, then you are free to publicly denounce minimum wage, antitrust, and labor laws right here and now, and leave such things to your supposedly beloved "free market."
As I have said before, one of the scariest words for a libertarian is "you should," as in, "you should do this" or "you should pay someone that." That is liberal talk, not libertarian talk. A libertarian would only say, "you should do whatever the fuck you want, so long as it doesn't hurt me." It's the liberals, not the libertarians, that think they know better than the free market and therefore should tinker with it and institute their morality in place who sells what cheapest.
As far as the gratuitous trolling of neocons, I hope that is modded appropriately. Apparently, you don't like neocons imposing their democratic morality on Iraq? But you want to impose your pay equity morality on Circuit City. Neither is libertarian, but at least the neocon knows it.
I can remain intolerant of Slashdot hypocrisy while discussing my experience from a different perspective. Slashdotters claim to be libertarians when it comes to YRO issues, but tend to make lefty, redistributionist attacks on large companies' profits (Apple), compensation (Circuit City), or business practices and political speech (Microsoft), just to name a few.
I have enormous intolerance for statists posing as libertarians. That doesn't mean I can't comment on bad business practices while still slamming the "workers of the world unite" crowd. I'm just that talented.
My standard comment would be "what a publicly held corporation pays its employees is not any of the average Slashdotter's business - assuming you aren't CC stockholders - since I know you are all libertarians and not lefty redistributionists." How is this tech news or any of your business, for that matter? Is this Liberal-dot-org?
But having just been in a Circuit City looking for a TV, I can tell you that company is doomed. The customer experience in there is so bad, mostly due to the lowest-common-denominator employee. Young, dumb, surly, and don't give a rat's ass about the company or the customer. From a business perspective, CC retail is a disaster. The CC execs shopuld walk into an Apple (up 120% this year, and the most profitable retail business per square foot on the earth) store (advice I have just written to them) and see how the customer experience differs from that in a CC (stock down 66% this year) store. Yes, Apple pays a lot more, but it is a pleasure to walk in there. Now that is an argument for better pay.
If they wanted to have crappy, harmful employees that alienate customers, they sure are going about it the right way.
Wow, I guess the "doer" bar has been lowered a bit. If you are a "doer," learn to play real guitar instead of some dumbed-down version with three buttons.
They should call it "Guitar for Retards." Typical of the dumbing down and increasing laziness of American culture.
It's saying Steve Jobs is trying to make customers pay more for the right to do something that's already a right.
What right is that? To back up DVDs? Where is that case law? The DMCA outlaws such uses until it is amended or the DCRA is passed. CDs don't have encryption or copy protection. DVDs do, so they are covered by the DMCA.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm all for fair use backups, but don't quote law that doesn't exist. There is no case law or statute that legalizes DVD backups or space shifting post DMCA.
Seems to me if you have Verizon stock you should love the company. I just don't understand the Slashdot mentality. Nobody is forcing you to buy a cell phone (you can always go month-to-month with a non-subsidized phone or a pay-as-you-go) or Windows (build your own PC) or anything else. I lived most most my life happily without a cell, but now cellphones are something everyone deserves to own, and own cheaply, on their own terms? You know, it costs millions and millions of dollars to build a modern cell network. Go down to South America and see what communication would be like without cell carriers investing millions. Do they not deserve a return?
If you don't like the product, don't buy it as the article submitter says. Don't buy the contract, accept the contract, then bitch about it later.
Sale price minus cost to build DOES NOT EQUAL profit. There is R&D, marketing, infrastructure costs (Infinite Loop & retail stores rental space, electricity, etc), associated shipping and packaging costs and oh yeah, Apple has this thing called EMPLOYEES that it must pay for.
As an AAPL stockholder, let me point out to you on Slashdot who actually owns corporations. It isn't rich, white fat cats twirling their mustaches. Two thirds of all publicly-traded stocks in the USA are owned by the small investor, either directly or through some sort of investment fund. And this is good, since I'd rather have Americans looking out for themselves than on the public dole, which pays less and is bankrupting America (and most of Western Europe) due to changing demographics.
My father, on disability for the last 15 years, has taken a $50,000 investment in Apple in the early 90's and, thanks to Steve Jobs, turned it into over $1,000,000. And the last thing he or any other AAPL stockholder needs is someone on Slashdot whining about how much Apple "makes" with your fuzzy math and socialist sympathies.
If you don't like Apple's products or business model, DON'T BUY ITS PRODUCTS. DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL A COMPANY THAT HAS PERFORMED WONDERFULLY FOR ITS STOCKHOLDERS (GOD BLESS STEVE JOBS) HOW TO DO ITS BUSINESS. THAT IS CALLED ARROGANCE.
We are no longer talking about the war on terra. Suddenly Big Government is good when it isn't a privacy issue. Slashdotters are so inconsistent. You all get riled up about a First Amendment or other YRO issue if it is a video game or something, but forcing a corporation what is has to say on a Web site, that's fine! What a horrible example of Big Brother Government.
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT PEOPLE. GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT JUST ABOUT WIRETAPPING!
The link is wrong, typical Wiki. There are two types of regulatory agencies. Executive, and independent. The FTC (the non-political analogue to Justice) and the SEC are independent. The CIA is part of homeland security, part of the executive branch. CIA is not independent and it is not regulatory. The CIA director serves at the pleasure of the president. The SEC chairman does NOT serve at the pleasure of the president. Cox could tell Bush to fark off and Bush couldn't do a thing.
The SEC consists of five presidentially-appointed Commissioners, with staggered five-year terms. One of them is designated by the President as Chairman of the Commission -- the agency's chief executive. By law, no more than three of the Commissioners may belong to the same political party, ensuring non-partisanship. The agency's functional responsibilities are organized into four Divisions and 18 Offices, each of which is headquartered in Washington, DC. The Commission's approximately 3,800 staff are located in Washington and in 11 Regional Offices throughout the country. Source
Gawd some people here are dumb. Pretending to be smart.
This is such BS. The SEC is a non-political independent regulatory agency outside of the executive branch! Bush couldn't order them to flush a toilet, let alone initiate an investigation.
But hey, it's an anti-Bush allegation, so let's greenlight it!
You couldn't be more wrong; repealing a law does not count. Besides, it's civil immunity, not a criminal law, so the Constitution doesn't even come into play anyway. Stick to linux, not law.
And as a long-time AAPL shareholder - including a large portion of my parents' retirement portfolio - I don't think that some dumb developer should tell me how much money Apple needs.
We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money.'"
This is the sort of statement that makes me laugh when I hear/.'ers claim that they are libertarian. This sounds a lot more like a leftist collectivist impulse, how much someone else "should" make. "Should" might be the scariest word in the libertarian language, other than "tax."
The sun is a cruel trickster- it makes a handy scapegoat in global warming arguments, but with the other hand it undermines this illiterate hocus pocus about the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbidding evolution.
Do you not see the extreme irony in this statement? The same "I want to believe therefore I do" creationist logic has permeated the man-made global warming alarmists (and apparently you, since you only want to use the sun as evidence when it suits your agenda. Otherwise it's a "scapegoat"). Just challenge a MM global warming alarmist and see what you get; name calling, not science. Scientists should be skeptics, not believe first, then be closed to all other evidence. The global warming crowd has a lot in common with the creationists.
In short, I think they are both religion-based psuedo science. Unfortunately, the MM global warming crowd (who tend to be the first to mock ID'ers) don't see their own belief first, science second similarities to ID'ers.
Who better to criticize war than a veteran?
Nobody. But when thatsame veteran runs on that same war record 30 years later - after essentially calling everyone in that war baby killers, even admitting to committing atrocities himself - we've got a flip-flopping opportunist.
Wasn't it the Dems saying that all of those potential Gore votes were lost due to confusion over the ballot? I didn't hear conservatives making that argument.
I can push buttons way better than my liberal friends in PC games like Unreal Tournament 2004 and Battlefield 2. I am smarter, yay!
Slashdot Mirror
I also practice the "real world of litigation" and that comment is quite arrogant - not to mention inaccurate. Otherwise, both briefs in legal cases would be identical. My experience is that the parties' briefs tend to be different (different does not mean "radical"). Every time. Maybe that's not how they do it in NY.
As for the RIAA vs. the world, we'll just have to see how this is ultimately settled by the appellate courts, not some trial judge. Many of the issues remain unsettled. But my money is on the copyright holder, his lawyer, and his political contributions, and not some pro se fair user.
and it made our skin bleed and our hair fall out, and WE LIKED IT!
That just because some lawyer on Slashdot - obviously with a pro-fair use bias or why would he be frequenting /.? - says something is true doesn't make it true (which includes this post). The EFF's brief is persuasive by definition, not an objective brief that a junior associate would present to a senior partner wanting a real world view of the law. Law schools teach both, the objective legal brief and the persuasive one. A persuasive brief argues one side by design. To suggest that one side's view in a persuasive brief constitutes "what US copyright law really says," is patently absurd.
Frankly, if the EFF's brief was a fair, objective view of the law one could argue that such a lawyer was committing malpractice. Effective advocacy, whether in a contract negotiation or litigation, means asking for more than you really want or think you deserve so you can compromise and look reasonable. If you want a million dollars, you don't ask for a million, you ask for three and negotiate downward.
For the record, I think the RIAA is generally full of shit and is abusing the legal and political process with its criminalization of intellectual property law and using law enforcement as its personal security team. But let's not let what we want the law to be get confused with what it really is.
Spencer's Gifts has been selling these for cool bachelor pads since the 1970's, man. What next, are we going to use lava lamps and blacklights for data transmission, man?
Oh, well if you say it's certain, I guess there is no need for a debate on the benefits of the Western system!
I completely disagree with the Marxist notion that labor=capital or a commodity. We don't have time for this debate. Suffice it to say we disagree.
Incidentally, you don't get to call yourself a libertarian if you're against unions -- a union is no different than a corporation. A corporation is a tool to make money for shareholders, a union is a tool to make money for union members.
Actually there is one huge difference. If employees get together to bargain, it's called a union. If corporations do it, it's called "collusion" and it's a per se antitrust violation. A libertarian believes that two corporations should be able to get together just like unions can and set wages. But under the modern paradigm, that would be a violation of antitrust law. The theory of antitrust, by the way, is that collusion of players in a market actually destroys the market. Collusion is cheating, so to speak, and not really a "free" market when two players bypass it and set their own private prices or wages. Collective bargaining by a union does the same thing, so don't call labor a free market until either both sides can or cannot collectively bargain. When only one side can, there is nothing "free' about it. So a libertarian would say, "yes, unions should be legal, but corporations should be able to collectively bargain as well, so get rid of antitrust law."
See, this is how I know that you're a neocon, and not a libertarian. Libertarians understand that "intellectual property" is a function of government regulation.
First off, stop misusing the term "neocon." It is only meant to differentiate a more modern foreign policy from that of earlier conservatives. I find it highly unlikely you could tell a paleocon from a neocon based on his stand on IP.
Secondly, the Constitution speaks directly to IP in Article I. It says Congress shall legislate on the matter. It's not exactly legislative overreaching when the Constitution commands it. Of course, a "real" libertarian believes the right to swing your fist ends where his nose begins. So you have the right to whatever you want to do, but not steal from him. A libertarian who owns a patent to a drug would likely feel an IP law is no different than a burglary statute protecting his TV. I know Slashdotters don't like this analogy, but libertarians believe the chief purpose of a government is to protect their shit!
According to what, the Nancy Pelosi Theory of Economics? Seriously, what school of economics defines a free market this way? You can criticize free market capitalism all you want, but you can't redefine what a free market is to coincide with your left wing world view. I had a Poli Sci professor who tried to redefine democracy this way because he didn't like its results. That was also arrogant.
According to Wikipedia, not exactly written by those at the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute,
A free market is a market in which there are prices of goods and services, and these prices are set by sellers, based on what they can afford in relation to what affluent people are able to pay.
I'm still looking for the part about it requiring the social conscience of its participants.
We have people who shop at Wal*Mart and think it's great that pickles only cost $3 instead of $3.50.
And why isn't is great? Poor people can now afford groceries. Because you don't like Wal-Mart's labor practices? You feel that I should pay for a grocery checker's health insurance via higher prices or the market isn't really free? What does that have to do with the free market?
As I have said before, one of the scariest words for a libertarian is "you should," as in, "you should do this" or "you should pay someone that." That is liberal talk, not libertarian talk. A libertarian would only say, "you should do whatever the fuck you want, so long as it doesn't hurt me." It's the liberals, not the libertarians, that think they know better than the free market and therefore should tinker with it and institute their morality in place who sells what cheapest.
As far as the gratuitous trolling of neocons, I hope that is modded appropriately. Apparently, you don't like neocons imposing their democratic morality on Iraq? But you want to impose your pay equity morality on Circuit City. Neither is libertarian, but at least the neocon knows it.
I have enormous intolerance for statists posing as libertarians. That doesn't mean I can't comment on bad business practices while still slamming the "workers of the world unite" crowd. I'm just that talented.
But having just been in a Circuit City looking for a TV, I can tell you that company is doomed. The customer experience in there is so bad, mostly due to the lowest-common-denominator employee. Young, dumb, surly, and don't give a rat's ass about the company or the customer. From a business perspective, CC retail is a disaster. The CC execs shopuld walk into an Apple (up 120% this year, and the most profitable retail business per square foot on the earth) store (advice I have just written to them) and see how the customer experience differs from that in a CC (stock down 66% this year) store. Yes, Apple pays a lot more, but it is a pleasure to walk in there. Now that is an argument for better pay.
If they wanted to have crappy, harmful employees that alienate customers, they sure are going about it the right way.
They should call it "Guitar for Retards." Typical of the dumbing down and increasing laziness of American culture.
"All the sex you want! But you're not going to like the catch."
It's saying Steve Jobs is trying to make customers pay more for the right to do something that's already a right.
What right is that? To back up DVDs? Where is that case law? The DMCA outlaws such uses until it is amended or the DCRA is passed. CDs don't have encryption or copy protection. DVDs do, so they are covered by the DMCA.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm all for fair use backups, but don't quote law that doesn't exist. There is no case law or statute that legalizes DVD backups or space shifting post DMCA.
IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer).
If you don't like the product, don't buy it as the article submitter says. Don't buy the contract, accept the contract, then bitch about it later.
Sale price minus cost to build DOES NOT EQUAL profit. There is R&D, marketing, infrastructure costs (Infinite Loop & retail stores rental space, electricity, etc), associated shipping and packaging costs and oh yeah, Apple has this thing called EMPLOYEES that it must pay for.
As an AAPL stockholder, let me point out to you on Slashdot who actually owns corporations. It isn't rich, white fat cats twirling their mustaches. Two thirds of all publicly-traded stocks in the USA are owned by the small investor, either directly or through some sort of investment fund. And this is good, since I'd rather have Americans looking out for themselves than on the public dole, which pays less and is bankrupting America (and most of Western Europe) due to changing demographics.
My father, on disability for the last 15 years, has taken a $50,000 investment in Apple in the early 90's and, thanks to Steve Jobs, turned it into over $1,000,000. And the last thing he or any other AAPL stockholder needs is someone on Slashdot whining about how much Apple "makes" with your fuzzy math and socialist sympathies.
If you don't like Apple's products or business model, DON'T BUY ITS PRODUCTS. DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL A COMPANY THAT HAS PERFORMED WONDERFULLY FOR ITS STOCKHOLDERS (GOD BLESS STEVE JOBS) HOW TO DO ITS BUSINESS. THAT IS CALLED ARROGANCE.
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT PEOPLE. GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT JUST ABOUT WIRETAPPING!
The SEC consists of five presidentially-appointed Commissioners, with staggered five-year terms. One of them is designated by the President as Chairman of the Commission -- the agency's chief executive. By law, no more than three of the Commissioners may belong to the same political party, ensuring non-partisanship. The agency's functional responsibilities are organized into four Divisions and 18 Offices, each of which is headquartered in Washington, DC. The Commission's approximately 3,800 staff are located in Washington and in 11 Regional Offices throughout the country. Source
Gawd some people here are dumb. Pretending to be smart.
This is such BS. The SEC is a non-political independent regulatory agency outside of the executive branch! Bush couldn't order them to flush a toilet, let alone initiate an investigation.
But hey, it's an anti-Bush allegation, so let's greenlight it!
You couldn't be more wrong; repealing a law does not count. Besides, it's civil immunity, not a criminal law, so the Constitution doesn't even come into play anyway. Stick to linux, not law.
And as a long-time AAPL shareholder - including a large portion of my parents' retirement portfolio - I don't think that some dumb developer should tell me how much money Apple needs.
/.'ers claim that they are libertarian. This sounds a lot more like a leftist collectivist impulse, how much someone else "should" make. "Should" might be the scariest word in the libertarian language, other than "tax."
We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money.'"
This is the sort of statement that makes me laugh when I hear
The sun is a cruel trickster- it makes a handy scapegoat in global warming arguments, but with the other hand it undermines this illiterate hocus pocus about the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbidding evolution.
Do you not see the extreme irony in this statement? The same "I want to believe therefore I do" creationist logic has permeated the man-made global warming alarmists (and apparently you, since you only want to use the sun as evidence when it suits your agenda. Otherwise it's a "scapegoat"). Just challenge a MM global warming alarmist and see what you get; name calling, not science. Scientists should be skeptics, not believe first, then be closed to all other evidence. The global warming crowd has a lot in common with the creationists.
In short, I think they are both religion-based psuedo science. Unfortunately, the MM global warming crowd (who tend to be the first to mock ID'ers) don't see their own belief first, science second similarities to ID'ers.
Why even have a heatsink?
Who better to criticize war than a veteran? Nobody. But when thatsame veteran runs on that same war record 30 years later - after essentially calling everyone in that war baby killers, even admitting to committing atrocities himself - we've got a flip-flopping opportunist.
Wasn't it the Dems saying that all of those potential Gore votes were lost due to confusion over the ballot? I didn't hear conservatives making that argument.
I can push buttons way better than my liberal friends in PC games like Unreal Tournament 2004 and Battlefield 2. I am smarter, yay!