The ugly paradox is that if you're rich enough to self-insure, you won't want to--you'll have substantial assets to protect and will in fact probably need more insurance to protect yourself from suits targeting deep pockets. You can't win--unless you move to Hartford and join the racket yourself.
Amateur--no one will bite on anything that obvious. Try to be a little more subtle. For example, try not referring to the government as "the State" with the capital--that's a big red flag (ha, I made a funny!) right there.
That's how it'll start off--it'll be a discount. Eventually, everyone will be eligible for the discount, and premiums will bubble up to the same level as before. In effect, there will be a surcharge for not allowing your insurance company access to your black box.
My deepest apologies to pig-fuckers everywhere! I didn't mean to deride practitioners of the fine old art of swine copulation by comparing them with cable executives.
More competing standards will cause confusion and anxiety in the marketplace, as skittish "rights" holders wait on the sidelines to see which one will emerge victorious. This could only be helpful in the battle against DRM. I encourage more digital restrictions standards:).
The use of public key crypto would not require a shared private key in the scenario you describe--or in any other. The document would be encrypted on each recipient's public key. Of course, none of this addresses what Microsoft is trying to do (besides lock people into Office 2003), which is to prevent an authorized recipient from sending the document to an unauthorized recipient. But nothing short of inserting an MS DRM interlocutor between every pair of human eyes and cerebral cortexes will succeed in doing that.
Oh, I don't know. Donations? If their cause is truly worthy, or if there's mutual interest, shouldn't be a problem, right? Otherwise, they can form a for-profit corporation and come out of the closet about wanting to make money.
Fair enough--but how do you know that even those who have registered and post with an ID are even a little accountable? Many people have more than one ID. (I started when the first one hit the karma cap:).)
Actually, it likely cost more for him to produce. Even though the setup cost of a pressed master is quite high, the economies of scale tend to push the cost per unit well below what your local artist spent, especially when you consider his labor.
Don't feel bad about paying your local artist--and rest secure in the knowledge that not one penny of it went to an RIAA executive's blow fund.
Lots of municipalities have laws requiring permits on the books--degree of enforcement may vary, but it's pretty good where I am. This is the section from the municipal code in my midwestern city:
Sec. 12-272. Solicitation permits required.
Every solicitor, of whatsoever form or nature must obtain a permit from the city before soliciting within the city. In order to obtain a permit to solicit, the applicant must furnish the information required under this article to the city clerk.
I can tell you I'm a counterexample. If someone knocks on my door in spite of the "NO SOLICITING" sign, they get the door in their face, and a followup from the local gendarmes asking about their permit (which they almost never have) to solicit.
Check the site in my sig--the RIAA is apparently poisoning that list with labels that aren't members to sow confusion. For example, Artemis Records is not and never has been an RIAA member. But there's an "Artemis" on the RIAA's member list, which for all I know could refer to a shell company named "Artemis."
This sort of information is reflected on the RIAA Radar (again, in the.sig) when it becomes available.
Slashdot Mirror
The ugly paradox is that if you're rich enough to self-insure, you won't want to--you'll have substantial assets to protect and will in fact probably need more insurance to protect yourself from suits targeting deep pockets. You can't win--unless you move to Hartford and join the racket yourself.
Amateur--no one will bite on anything that obvious. Try to be a little more subtle. For example, try not referring to the government as "the State" with the capital--that's a big red flag (ha, I made a funny!) right there.
That's how it'll start off--it'll be a discount. Eventually, everyone will be eligible for the discount, and premiums will bubble up to the same level as before. In effect, there will be a surcharge for not allowing your insurance company access to your black box.
My deepest apologies to pig-fuckers everywhere! I didn't mean to deride practitioners of the fine old art of swine copulation by comparing them with cable executives.
People who grew up on a farm will understand what I mean.
More competing standards will cause confusion and anxiety in the marketplace, as skittish "rights" holders wait on the sidelines to see which one will emerge victorious. This could only be helpful in the battle against DRM. I encourage more digital restrictions standards :).
The use of public key crypto would not require a shared private key in the scenario you describe--or in any other. The document would be encrypted on each recipient's public key. Of course, none of this addresses what Microsoft is trying to do (besides lock people into Office 2003), which is to prevent an authorized recipient from sending the document to an unauthorized recipient. But nothing short of inserting an MS DRM interlocutor between every pair of human eyes and cerebral cortexes will succeed in doing that.
Oh, I don't know. Donations? If their cause is truly worthy, or if there's mutual interest, shouldn't be a problem, right? Otherwise, they can form a for-profit corporation and come out of the closet about wanting to make money.
So called "non-profits" shouldn't be allowed to be "paid for what they do," no. Nor should they be allowed to hold intellectual "property."
Fair enough--but how do you know that even those who have registered and post with an ID are even a little accountable? Many people have more than one ID. (I started when the first one hit the karma cap :).)
Says he with the user ID that shows no contact information. Spare me the self-righteousness.
I wasn't trying to be.
But without prison rape, why would people fear the DMCA?
This technique is in wide use on Usenet, e.g.
Mciorofst Ociffe 2003 Dsik 1.iso
Mod parent up!
Don't feel bad about paying your local artist--and rest secure in the knowledge that not one penny of it went to an RIAA executive's blow fund.
Sec. 12-272. Solicitation permits required.
Every solicitor, of whatsoever form or nature must obtain a permit from the city before soliciting within the city. In order to obtain a permit to solicit, the applicant must furnish the information required under this article to the city clerk.
(Ord. No. 4793-02, 2, 7-2-0)
I can tell you I'm a counterexample. If someone knocks on my door in spite of the "NO SOLICITING" sign, they get the door in their face, and a followup from the local gendarmes asking about their permit (which they almost never have) to solicit.
No, I'm so cynical I thought that before reading the article. Seriously.
Strictly speaking, it's about breach of contract, but the original contract was a settlement of a trademark dispute.
In any case, Apple was enforcing IP "rights," while trampling on others'. The merits of the C&Ds are not relevant to the argument.
This sort of information is reflected on the RIAA Radar (again, in the .sig) when it becomes available.
According to the RIAA, you can probably already find movies of that on Kazaa.
I'm sure anyone who would know enough to nullify the verdict will be screened out in voir dire, unfortunately.
Default judgement, chapter seven.