Actually, the flavor of injunction that requires a showing of irreparable harm is a preliminary injunction. This issued before the case is heard in it's entirety.
What happened here is an ex parte (loosely translated as without the other guy there) injunction. This is more offensive to due process.
Yes, most songs are produced using Pro Tools and yes there is a consumer version of Pro Tools available for less than $500. But that is not the same version used to produce most popular songs. A much more expensive version with a number of breakout boxes and specialized hardware which makes it possible to use a vanilla G4 is used to pruduce those songs. The costs of the break-out boxes, plug-ins (mentioned in the article), and other add-ons adds up to a lot. You can end paying tens of thousands of dollars for a tricked-out Pro Sounds set up. And you still don't have a live room, mics, instruments, etc.
I would like to see the price break down for Butch Vig's $15,000 studio. I bet it's actually more when every bit of software and hardware is accounted for. And those producers are very expensive.
This proposal is an interesting implementation of a very old theory put forth by Noble Prize-winner Ronald Coase. He wrote an article addressing this very problem called 'The Marginal Cost Controversy' back in 1946. It's an interesting read and highly recommended.
This is not an all or nothing proposition. Property is not an absolute, even when discussing the same "thing". It is more circumstantial and dictated by the social and economic relationships specific to the situation.
When an individual has an economic interest in me and my personal information, that individual's access to my personal information should be regulated. When there is no economic interest and their communication is well intentioned, then it should be unregulated.
We do not allow threatening and harassing communication. We should not allow it just because someone is being employed by this communication.
These privacy issues highlight the power of organizing. On one side we have huge organized blocks, corporations, with an overwhelming economic argument for collecting personal information. On the other side there are scattered voices that occasionaly voice their distress with respect to the situation. This is a variation on what is known as the tragedy of the commons. There is not any single entity that can effectively counter the accumulated economic interest of the corporation or corporations. This makes it difficult to have personal privacy come out on top even if the accumulated personal economic interest of private individuals would outweigh the accumulated economic interest of the corporations.
The only effective broker for the accumulation of personal economic interest in privacy at this time is the government. The regulations do not have to be overly restrictive. We could start out slow, with fuller disclosure regarding privacy policies of organizations. Perhaps an accompanying temporary moratorium on linking user behavior with user identity. And greater regulation of SS# usage.
I don't have the answers but it is naive to deny there is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And which Amendment in the Bill of Rights would that be?
Actually, the flavor of injunction that requires a showing of irreparable harm is a preliminary injunction. This issued before the case is heard in it's entirety.
What happened here is an ex parte (loosely translated as without the other guy there) injunction. This is more offensive to due process.
Yes, most songs are produced using Pro Tools and yes there is a consumer version of Pro Tools available for less than $500. But that is not the same version used to produce most popular songs. A much more expensive version with a number of breakout boxes and specialized hardware which makes it possible to use a vanilla G4 is used to pruduce those songs. The costs of the break-out boxes, plug-ins (mentioned in the article), and other add-ons adds up to a lot. You can end paying tens of thousands of dollars for a tricked-out Pro Sounds set up. And you still don't have a live room, mics, instruments, etc.
I would like to see the price break down for Butch Vig's $15,000 studio. I bet it's actually more when every bit of software and hardware is accounted for. And those producers are very expensive.
This proposal is an interesting implementation of a very old theory put forth by Noble Prize-winner Ronald Coase. He wrote an article addressing this very problem called 'The Marginal Cost Controversy' back in 1946. It's an interesting read and highly recommended.
This is not an all or nothing proposition. Property is not an absolute, even when discussing the same "thing". It is more circumstantial and dictated by the social and economic relationships specific to the situation.
When an individual has an economic interest in me and my personal information, that individual's access to my personal information should be regulated. When there is no economic interest and their communication is well intentioned, then it should be unregulated.
We do not allow threatening and harassing communication. We should not allow it just because someone is being employed by this communication.These privacy issues highlight the power of organizing. On one side we have huge organized blocks, corporations, with an overwhelming economic argument for collecting personal information. On the other side there are scattered voices that occasionaly voice their distress with respect to the situation. This is a variation on what is known as the tragedy of the commons. There is not any single entity that can effectively counter the accumulated economic interest of the corporation or corporations. This makes it difficult to have personal privacy come out on top even if the accumulated personal economic interest of private individuals would outweigh the accumulated economic interest of the corporations.
The only effective broker for the accumulation of personal economic interest in privacy at this time is the government. The regulations do not have to be overly restrictive. We could start out slow, with fuller disclosure regarding privacy policies of organizations. Perhaps an accompanying temporary moratorium on linking user behavior with user identity. And greater regulation of SS# usage.
I don't have the answers but it is naive to deny there is a problem.