Personally, I think a significant number of people who don't vote, don't vote because they feel disenfranchised. If they all went out and voted, they would probably vote for a third party/independent candidate, who doesn't represent either of the major parties which many view to be openly corrupt. (Both parties openly sell time with the government officials for campaign contributions, both take far more money from companies than from real live citizens.)
I see the value of fast user switching. I see the value of the Location Manager.
I just don't understand how they go together? Do you switch users when you go from wireless to ethernet? When you're surfing the web and your kid needs to print a book report out quick, are you using "wireless unplugged" and your kid, who is presumably right there in the same place, uses "ethernet plugged"? Does your kid have a built in 10bT jack or something?
The ability to change configuration settings on the fly is great for laptops, and fast user switching is great at work where we have to test multiple parts of a web-based site (each using its own cookies, so have to have more than one different browser session open). I think the confusion comes from trying to tie these seperate concepts together.
Easily done. The law that enforces the royalties on streaming music (originally CARP, now the Small Webcaster Settlement Act) declares that Soundexchange (A division of the RIAA) to be the official receiver and distributor for all noninteractive digital performance royalties (from their FAQ).
What I would like to see would be for some small bands to set up their own streams, pay Soundexchange their $500 minimum yearly royalty, then sue Soundforge in small claims court, if Soundforge refuses to pay the full $500 back. In the absence of a contract permitting Soundexchange to keep any of the money, there is no reasonable expectation that any of that money belongs to Soundexchange.
From those judgements against soundexchange (maybe if enough showed up, a class action suit could be had?), it would be interesting to see where it could go next... perhaps some kind of action against them being the Royal Royalty Collector since they have been shown (by the lawsuits) to be behaving in bad faith, and that an independent company should be responsbile for royalty distribution.
Yeah. Kinda sucks when people go back and forth between "copyright infringement" (which is civil) and "theft" (which is criminal). This is what happens when all the RIAA and MPAA groupies start using stronger language than what is really going on. All it does is get everyone confused, without making the deed sound any more threatening or dangerous or whatever.
If it means more scrotes are taken off the streets and less innocents are locked away then I'm all for it!
Its all well and good until the local sperm bank and/or blood donation center gets broken into. Or maybe some labels on some little vials get switched. How do you counter DNA evidence in this day and age? Especially since police departments seem to have a short shelf life on their DNA evidence.
Of course, living in Houston like me, where we're watching the police department's crime lab go through the wringer for completely screwing up DNA analysis over the years, gives one a much different view of the whole thing. Its fun to watch the higher-ups claim they never received memos regarding the shoddy DNA work and the contaminated labs. So we have your choice of "incompetent bozos who can't keep track of whats going on" or "government coverup". Given that we've seen how the police farce can abuse their power, I'm all for not giving them any more than they already have.
The problem here wouldn't be corners, but intersections, though (with normal conveyor belt style design, You would just have to get off and walk across the intersection). Maybe some kind of large spinning disc at the intersection which could touch all the "roads". If you always had roads travelling in one way or another (say counter clockwise, at least in the US) then the disc could rotate in the opposite direction and you could step onto the disc in the same direction you were going before.
The problem would be where would the poles *go* when you reached the end of the strip. If they just went around like on a conveyor belt, someone would get themselves pinned between the pole and the floor either out of malice (if it didn't slice through the person, the belt would jam or break) or sheer stupidity.
If the belt ran around a deeper area, I could see an "internal" belt, carefully timed and placed so that the poles sank down at the end of the track, where the internal belt just held the poles and the external one had holes for the poles to stick through.
So many holes and poles... Freud would be shocked.
We're going to kill everyone in the name of some twisted religion! Oh look, the plane's going down now! I wonder how many buildings we'll plow through before we come to a stop. Huzzah!
Seriously, this is stupid. Using a plane as a bomb doesn't require that the plane be functioning at the moment of impact. If it takes disabling the plane to undo this, then the terrorists will just do that and try to aim for a civilized area the best they can before hand.
Besides, hijacking planes is so last week. I find it highly unlikely that a hijacking attempt will work in the US again. If something like the 9/11 attacks happen again, it will be from people on the inside, and they'd have already disabled anything like this Safe Wall idea.
Visa's done that. Not quite in the shopping lane of walmart, but my little brother used to have a visa credit card that was actually a prepaid card. It was his responsibility to make sure he kept track of how much cash was left on it, and to spend it carefully so he didn't embarass himself in front of his friends by having it rejected. I thought it was pretty cool, but I haven't heard much about it since then. (of course, if I have kids I'll probably hear ALL about the things I can pay for to give them...)
The mailman who comes by the office I work at is a great guy, we all hang out and shoot the breeze every now and then when he delivers mail (not too often, we started getting complaints from the people on the upper floors that the mail was getting late.) We discuss computers, grouse about our vacation time, or lack of it(he gets Friday off for 4th of July. Then he goes back to work for the 5th.) and whatever else comes up.
I wonder if theres a way to nominate him for some kind of "cool postman" award.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get this from? I had a discussion about adjectives in english just the other night, and being a native english speaker, I determined I don't know jack about the language. Personally, I blame the school system, which had me analyzing old dead people's stories since I was old enough to have an "English" class, and the language itself could go to hell as long as I could tell the teacher what something or another symbolized.
So, if you've got a good book for learning about English by you, let me have the title for it;)
If we know the target language, then you could produce a challenge based on a sentence. Say something like "Thirteen red small dogs went to the zoo." What size were they? (to which the answer would be "small")
You could mix and match questions and adjectives to keep spammers on their toes. The only drawback is that this is only effective for as long as you have a bigger dictionary system than the spammers. Using a larger sentence or paragraph with more complexities should help.
"[count] [color] [size] [age] object [and [count] [color] [size] [age] [object]...] verb [location] [time]."... as long as you've got a big enough dictionary that can fill in the blanks, generating these messages as a challenge should be a cinch. an encrypted string in the Subject (which is fairly dependably returned in the reply) could be used to identify the particular message, and the answer could be looked up
Lets cite your document back at you. These are all in there:
"The idea of a "fair use" defense finds direct authority in copyright law. Copyright tatutes up through 1909 spoke in terms of "exclusive" rights, but these were quite early ubjected to a judge-made equitable rule of reason ultimately known as fair use. [n.45]"
"The jury instructions had been given the effect that absent a finding of intent to use the invention for profit, infringement could not be established. Noting that the "use for profit" limitation was actually in the defendant's favor, Justice Story affirmed..."
"Faced with a problem of first impression, the court reviewed a fair amount of property concepts to determine whether or not the patentee had any rights to recovery for some manufacturing before the issuance of the patent. The court noted that in Gayler v. Wilder..."
"Arising solely out of case law..."
What do these all have in common? They're not laws, they're rulings. I don't have the time to sit down and hunt through ancient tomes of proceedings to look for examples of companies suing individuals who implement inventions for personal use, but I can point to current events for an example of how much your cited ruling means in the grander scope of things.
Take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision where they reversed their stand on anti-homosexual-sodomy laws. Just like that, your claim that these exemptions exist could vaporize. A case comes up to a new set of justices, and they can rule whichever way they please.
All it takes is the right president appointing the right justices, and the right case to test it... I wonder how many appointments will come up while Bush is in power? Ever noticed how all the big companies get off with slaps on the wrist under his administration? I wonder if the Bush camp would be for or against the little people when it comes to building something someone else invents.
Since nothing I say is going to convince you that I'm not a clueless troll, I might as well end this with a bit of an apples to oranges comparison so you can rant some more. Under copyright law, if I write and publish a book and sell it for $5, if you produced a copy of the book using your own inks and paper, I can still sue you for copyright infringement. If you have no intention of selling it to anyone, I can still sue you and show that damages did occur, on the order of $5-(cost of producing the book) because you did not purchase the book, however you demonstrated through the effort you took in copying it that you desired the content of the book. So, in the case where you built my engine for your own use, it would be trivial to show that your construction of the engine and subsequent usage caused damages to the tune of (how much I charge per engine)-(cost of engine construction), in other words: "lost profits".
Sure, my engine infringement case might be thrown out. The judge might even cite your case law back at me. But what if they don't? What if I get an ignorant judge, or if the judge's grandfather used to work for GM and suddenly finds his retirement account topped off from a "lucky investment"? Or the judge doesn't like your attitude? Then what is your case law going to buy you then? An appeal? Is ignoring precedent to follow the letter of the law an error upon which you could appeal? (Of course, theres always an error somewhere to appeal. Plus, bribing the judge would certainly invalidate the ruling, as well as get us both in a ton of trouble, but lets assume I got there without cheating)
These are eBay's papers, and it's in eBay's house.
Are they? At what point do I give up ownership of my address? My name? Does ebay have the right to come and say "Your name belongs to us now, and we like it very much. So much, in fact, we're going to keep it. We've assigned you your new name, Number Three-Five-Five-Two-Seven-Zero. Have a nice day."
And lets assume it does belong to ebay, then does that mean that its ebay's responsibility to maintain that information on their own? Can I sue them if I move into an ex-ebay-con's apartment and the feds come-a-knocking with their big metal doorknocker because their personal possessions caused the event? Can I sue them if I move to an apartment and an ebay seller ships goods to my old address because PayPal (now part of ebay, remember) didn't update its address records?
Besides, outside of a case concerning fraud using ebay, what legitimate interest would the police have in my information as a seller? Oh wait, I might have bought or sold something "fishy". A book maybe? Or maybe the MPAA or RIAA buys a few cops to hunt down people selling DVDs and CDs on ebay. Crack down on those peons exercising their so-called right of first sale. Terrorists the whole lot of them!
Finally, to the people who reject the idea of peoples' rights: When it comes to justice, these rights exist for one purpose only. And that purpose isn't to let criminals walk the streets, it is to let the innocent walk the streets, because for every innocent person behind bars, thats one more robber or murderer walking the streets with you. And guess what, nobody's looking for the murderer anymore! Don't you feel safe now?
Which would you rather have? Some innocent person behind bars, case closed, DA pats himself on the back and calls it a day? Or nobody behind bars, police officers working the case and looking for the real criminal?
No, it means that if you're amused by putting it together, or you assembled it to learn how a motor works, or if its assembly contains the meaning of life, then you're ok.
If you're putting it together to use it, its not protected. If you assemble the motor for using it, thats one less motor the patent holder can sell you for your use.
The point of the anti-spam laws is that spam does impair functionality and incur measurable damages, at least in terms of company employees' time spent messing with the junk and high-traffic mail servers which process tons of the stuff.
Nothing at all to prevent you or I from reading about, and making, our own patented widget in our garage and using it all we like.
That better be a pretty well hidden garage, then. Patent law does not discriminate about how you use the device. If you build something covered by patent X, its infringing. Of course, the patent holder would have to find out about it, but if someone patented a new engine, and then drove by your house and found you using their engine to mow your lawn, they could sue you for infringement.
They may be useless to you, since you're a gamer and you just want to know how fast your games will run, but when I need a card to run 3dmark as fast as possible, I know which test I'm looking for.
The point is, is "conspiracy" grounds for $180M? Like I said, if the guy had just stole the stuff, there wouldn't be any "payments for life" in his sentence, just some jail time.
We both agree that what he did was illegal, the problem is that the sentence that was imposed was pulled straight out of the company's ass.
The thought crimes thing isn't about conspiracy, its about the settlement being based on possible future damages. If this becomes a precedent, how long before people and companies start suing each other because they're sure that some damage will happen in the future and they want to make sure to get cash up front. If I live on the coast, can I sue my home insurance company for future flood damage? After all, with global warming its inevitable that damage will occur when the ice caps melt and all of California sinks into the ocean.
What we end up owning is the media, and a perpetual license to listen to the content.
That thought right there is what seems to scare the big guys the most. See, what they want is for you to own nothing after putting down your hard-earned cash.
They don't want you to own the cd iteself, because then you could give it to someone else since it is your physical property. They most definitely don't want you to own a perpetual license to listen to the CD, because then they couldn't charge you for each time you hear the song.
Why shouldn't we? Just think. If the guy had stolen 5000 receivers and given them out, he'd probably do about the same amount of time, but no judge or jury would have fined him $180 million.
Seriously, unlike you, we're not sorry that he didn't get away with his crime, we're sorry that the US judicial system has become a blank check for companies to write out whatever punishments they feel like giving out.
Oh wow, planning on selling devices. Thats surely worth $180million.
I know, lets send the cops out, and just give out speeding and parking tickets at random. 'cause, everyone was planning on speeding that day, and everyone will at some time park illegally.
You'll be first in line to pay your thoughtcrime fines right?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think a significant number of people who don't vote, don't vote because they feel disenfranchised. If they all went out and voted, they would probably vote for a third party/independent candidate, who doesn't represent either of the major parties which many view to be openly corrupt. (Both parties openly sell time with the government officials for campaign contributions, both take far more money from companies than from real live citizens.)
I see the value of fast user switching.
I see the value of the Location Manager.
I just don't understand how they go together? Do you switch users when you go from wireless to ethernet? When you're surfing the web and your kid needs to print a book report out quick, are you using "wireless unplugged" and your kid, who is presumably right there in the same place, uses "ethernet plugged"? Does your kid have a built in 10bT jack or something?
The ability to change configuration settings on the fly is great for laptops, and fast user switching is great at work where we have to test multiple parts of a web-based site (each using its own cookies, so have to have more than one different browser session open). I think the confusion comes from trying to tie these seperate concepts together.
Now, he is able to play every night between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. while his daughter sleeps in the next room.
If this was UT or Quake, this entire article would be about how he was destroying his life, and getting ready to go on a rampage.
But instead, its just a game of cards, and he's gambling with his family's money, but thats OK.
Can you substantiate this claim?
Easily done. The law that enforces the royalties on streaming music (originally CARP, now the Small Webcaster Settlement Act) declares that Soundexchange (A division of the RIAA) to be the official receiver and distributor for all noninteractive digital performance royalties (from their FAQ).
What I would like to see would be for some small bands to set up their own streams, pay Soundexchange their $500 minimum yearly royalty, then sue Soundforge in small claims court, if Soundforge refuses to pay the full $500 back. In the absence of a contract permitting Soundexchange to keep any of the money, there is no reasonable expectation that any of that money belongs to Soundexchange.
From those judgements against soundexchange (maybe if enough showed up, a class action suit could be had?), it would be interesting to see where it could go next... perhaps some kind of action against them being the Royal Royalty Collector since they have been shown (by the lawsuits) to be behaving in bad faith, and that an independent company should be responsbile for royalty distribution.
Sure, if you're willing to pay the license for it and pass those costs on to the consumer.
Linux has become the way to go embedded on the cheap. If you don't need an RTOS, what in QNX are you paying for?
Yeah. Kinda sucks when people go back and forth between "copyright infringement" (which is civil) and "theft" (which is criminal). This is what happens when all the RIAA and MPAA groupies start using stronger language than what is really going on. All it does is get everyone confused, without making the deed sound any more threatening or dangerous or whatever.
All your undying phrases are belong to us!
If it means more scrotes are taken off the streets and less innocents are locked away then I'm all for it!
Its all well and good until the local sperm bank and/or blood donation center gets broken into. Or maybe some labels on some little vials get switched. How do you counter DNA evidence in this day and age? Especially since police departments seem to have a short shelf life on their DNA evidence.
Of course, living in Houston like me, where we're watching the police department's crime lab go through the wringer for completely screwing up DNA analysis over the years, gives one a much different view of the whole thing. Its fun to watch the higher-ups claim they never received memos regarding the shoddy DNA work and the contaminated labs. So we have your choice of "incompetent bozos who can't keep track of whats going on" or "government coverup". Given that we've seen how the police farce can abuse their power, I'm all for not giving them any more than they already have.
Silly me, I should have thought of that ;)
The problem here wouldn't be corners, but intersections, though (with normal conveyor belt style design, You would just have to get off and walk across the intersection). Maybe some kind of large spinning disc at the intersection which could touch all the "roads". If you always had roads travelling in one way or another (say counter clockwise, at least in the US) then the disc could rotate in the opposite direction and you could step onto the disc in the same direction you were going before.
The problem would be where would the poles *go* when you reached the end of the strip. If they just went around like on a conveyor belt, someone would get themselves pinned between the pole and the floor either out of malice (if it didn't slice through the person, the belt would jam or break) or sheer stupidity.
If the belt ran around a deeper area, I could see an "internal" belt, carefully timed and placed so that the poles sank down at the end of the track, where the internal belt just held the poles and the external one had holes for the poles to stick through.
So many holes and poles... Freud would be shocked.
We're going to kill everyone in the name of some twisted religion! Oh look, the plane's going down now! I wonder how many buildings we'll plow through before we come to a stop. Huzzah!
Seriously, this is stupid. Using a plane as a bomb doesn't require that the plane be functioning at the moment of impact. If it takes disabling the plane to undo this, then the terrorists will just do that and try to aim for a civilized area the best they can before hand.
Besides, hijacking planes is so last week. I find it highly unlikely that a hijacking attempt will work in the US again. If something like the 9/11 attacks happen again, it will be from people on the inside, and they'd have already disabled anything like this Safe Wall idea.
Visa's done that. Not quite in the shopping lane of walmart, but my little brother used to have a visa credit card that was actually a prepaid card. It was his responsibility to make sure he kept track of how much cash was left on it, and to spend it carefully so he didn't embarass himself in front of his friends by having it rejected. I thought it was pretty cool, but I haven't heard much about it since then. (of course, if I have kids I'll probably hear ALL about the things I can pay for to give them...)
The mailman who comes by the office I work at is a great guy, we all hang out and shoot the breeze every now and then when he delivers mail (not too often, we started getting complaints from the people on the upper floors that the mail was getting late.) We discuss computers, grouse about our vacation time, or lack of it(he gets Friday off for 4th of July. Then he goes back to work for the 5th.) and whatever else comes up.
I wonder if theres a way to nominate him for some kind of "cool postman" award.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get this from? I had a discussion about adjectives in english just the other night, and being a native english speaker, I determined I don't know jack about the language. Personally, I blame the school system, which had me analyzing old dead people's stories since I was old enough to have an "English" class, and the language itself could go to hell as long as I could tell the teacher what something or another symbolized.
;)
So, if you've got a good book for learning about English by you, let me have the title for it
If we know the target language, then you could produce a challenge based on a sentence. Say something like
...] verb [location] [time]." ... as long as you've got a big enough dictionary that can fill in the blanks, generating these messages as a challenge should be a cinch. an encrypted string in the Subject (which is fairly dependably returned in the reply) could be used to identify the particular message, and the answer could be looked up
"Thirteen red small dogs went to the zoo."
What size were they? (to which the answer would be "small")
You could mix and match questions and adjectives to keep spammers on their toes. The only drawback is that this is only effective for as long as you have a bigger dictionary system than the spammers. Using a larger sentence or paragraph with more complexities should help.
"[count] [color] [size] [age] object [and [count] [color] [size] [age] [object]
Lets cite your document back at you. These are all in there:
"The idea of a "fair use" defense finds direct authority in copyright law. Copyright
tatutes up through 1909 spoke in terms of "exclusive" rights, but these were quite early
ubjected to a judge-made equitable rule of reason ultimately known as fair use. [n.45]"
"The jury instructions had been given the effect that absent a finding of intent to use the
invention for profit, infringement could not be established. Noting that the "use for
profit" limitation was actually in the defendant's favor, Justice Story affirmed..."
"Faced with a problem of first impression, the court reviewed a fair amount of property
concepts to determine whether or not the patentee had any rights to recovery for some
manufacturing before the issuance of the patent. The court noted that in Gayler v. Wilder..."
"Arising solely out of case law..."
What do these all have in common? They're not laws, they're rulings. I don't have the time to sit down and hunt through ancient tomes of proceedings to look for examples of companies suing individuals who implement inventions for personal use, but I can point to current events for an example of how much your cited ruling means in the grander scope of things.
Take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision where they reversed their stand on anti-homosexual-sodomy laws. Just like that, your claim that these exemptions exist could vaporize. A case comes up to a new set of justices, and they can rule whichever way they please.
All it takes is the right president appointing the right justices, and the right case to test it... I wonder how many appointments will come up while Bush is in power? Ever noticed how all the big companies get off with slaps on the wrist under his administration? I wonder if the Bush camp would be for or against the little people when it comes to building something someone else invents.
Since nothing I say is going to convince you that I'm not a clueless troll, I might as well end this with a bit of an apples to oranges comparison so you can rant some more. Under copyright law, if I write and publish a book and sell it for $5, if you produced a copy of the book using your own inks and paper, I can still sue you for copyright infringement. If you have no intention of selling it to anyone, I can still sue you and show that damages did occur, on the order of $5-(cost of producing the book) because you did not purchase the book, however you demonstrated through the effort you took in copying it that you desired the content of the book. So, in the case where you built my engine for your own use, it would be trivial to show that your construction of the engine and subsequent usage caused damages to the tune of (how much I charge per engine)-(cost of engine construction), in other words: "lost profits".
Sure, my engine infringement case might be thrown out. The judge might even cite your case law back at me. But what if they don't? What if I get an ignorant judge, or if the judge's grandfather used to work for GM and suddenly finds his retirement account topped off from a "lucky investment"? Or the judge doesn't like your attitude? Then what is your case law going to buy you then? An appeal? Is ignoring precedent to follow the letter of the law an error upon which you could appeal? (Of course, theres always an error somewhere to appeal. Plus, bribing the judge would certainly invalidate the ruling, as well as get us both in a ton of trouble, but lets assume I got there without cheating)
These are eBay's papers, and it's in eBay's house.
Are they? At what point do I give up ownership of my address? My name? Does ebay have the right to come and say "Your name belongs to us now, and we like it very much. So much, in fact, we're going to keep it. We've assigned you your new name, Number Three-Five-Five-Two-Seven-Zero. Have a nice day."
And lets assume it does belong to ebay, then does that mean that its ebay's responsibility to maintain that information on their own? Can I sue them if I move into an ex-ebay-con's apartment and the feds come-a-knocking with their big metal doorknocker because their personal possessions caused the event? Can I sue them if I move to an apartment and an ebay seller ships goods to my old address because PayPal (now part of ebay, remember) didn't update its address records?
Besides, outside of a case concerning fraud using ebay, what legitimate interest would the police have in my information as a seller? Oh wait, I might have bought or sold something "fishy". A book maybe? Or maybe the MPAA or RIAA buys a few cops to hunt down people selling DVDs and CDs on ebay. Crack down on those peons exercising their so-called right of first sale. Terrorists the whole lot of them!
Finally, to the people who reject the idea of peoples' rights: When it comes to justice, these rights exist for one purpose only. And that purpose isn't to let criminals walk the streets, it is to let the innocent walk the streets, because for every innocent person behind bars, thats one more robber or murderer walking the streets with you. And guess what, nobody's looking for the murderer anymore! Don't you feel safe now?
Which would you rather have? Some innocent person behind bars, case closed, DA pats himself on the back and calls it a day? Or nobody behind bars, police officers working the case and looking for the real criminal?
No, it means that if you're amused by putting it together, or you assembled it to learn how a motor works, or if its assembly contains the meaning of life, then you're ok.
If you're putting it together to use it, its not protected. If you assemble the motor for using it, thats one less motor the patent holder can sell you for your use.
The point of the anti-spam laws is that spam does impair functionality and incur measurable damages, at least in terms of company employees' time spent messing with the junk and high-traffic mail servers which process tons of the stuff.
Nothing at all to prevent you or I from reading about, and making, our own patented widget in our garage and using it all we like.
That better be a pretty well hidden garage, then. Patent law does not discriminate about how you use the device. If you build something covered by patent X, its infringing. Of course, the patent holder would have to find out about it, but if someone patented a new engine, and then drove by your house and found you using their engine to mow your lawn, they could sue you for infringement.
They may be useless to you, since you're a gamer and you just want to know how fast your games will run, but when I need a card to run 3dmark as fast as possible, I know which test I'm looking for.
The point is, is "conspiracy" grounds for $180M? Like I said, if the guy had just stole the stuff, there wouldn't be any "payments for life" in his sentence, just some jail time.
We both agree that what he did was illegal, the problem is that the sentence that was imposed was pulled straight out of the company's ass.
The thought crimes thing isn't about conspiracy, its about the settlement being based on possible future damages. If this becomes a precedent, how long before people and companies start suing each other because they're sure that some damage will happen in the future and they want to make sure to get cash up front. If I live on the coast, can I sue my home insurance company for future flood damage? After all, with global warming its inevitable that damage will occur when the ice caps melt and all of California sinks into the ocean.
What we end up owning is the media, and a perpetual license to listen to the content.
That thought right there is what seems to scare the big guys the most. See, what they want is for you to own nothing after putting down your hard-earned cash.
They don't want you to own the cd iteself, because then you could give it to someone else since it is your physical property. They most definitely don't want you to own a perpetual license to listen to the CD, because then they couldn't charge you for each time you hear the song.
Why shouldn't we? Just think. If the guy had stolen 5000 receivers and given them out, he'd probably do about the same amount of time, but no judge or jury would have fined him $180 million.
Seriously, unlike you, we're not sorry that he didn't get away with his crime, we're sorry that the US judicial system has become a blank check for companies to write out whatever punishments they feel like giving out.
Oh wow, planning on selling devices. Thats surely worth $180million.
I know, lets send the cops out, and just give out speeding and parking tickets at random. 'cause, everyone was planning on speeding that day, and everyone will at some time park illegally.
You'll be first in line to pay your thoughtcrime fines right?