Many people who download a copyrighted song from KaZaA are doing so to avoid paying for it. Having these songs available for download enables this behavior AND INFRINGES UPON THE COPYRIGHT.
Loitering does not result in somebody obtaining a product without paying for it.
The record company's exclusive right to copy the song is being infringed upon. Given that this results in loss of sales (while the exact degree to which revenue is being impacted cannot be quantified, you'd have to be living in a fantasy land to assert that the impact is "minimal" or "non-existent"), this is, most definitely, theft.
Actually, you still have the presumption of innocence in civil court, too. It's just that the standard of "guilt" in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence" by 9 out of 12 jurors instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" by 12 out of 12 jurors in criminal cases.
That's why the families went after him in Civil court. They figured they could win there.
Furthermore, you know exactly how this bill will be used if it passes. The RIAA will immediately choose 4 random college students out of their database of pirates and land them in jail for 5 years, to scare the others away from KaZaA. That's ridiculous. The billion-dollar suits were bad enough, now they want to land them in jail? Well, I guess that prevents the community from making it up with PayPal donations.
Two observations:
1) They'd have to compile a new list of pirates after the law became effective. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution.
2) If the students don't want to end up in jail, they can (get this) STOP PUTTING SHIT ON KAZAA FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO DOWNLOAD. It's just that simple. If you don't want to be prosecuted, don't break the law.
So making good independent music should be a felony too, since it also could cause many pontential sales losses.
What the hell planet are you living on? There's a difference between competition and getting something for free.
Part of the reason that their "crappy music" isn't selling is because people are downloading it for free online. Not everybody is as pure of heart as you obviously are.
I condone a punishment appropriate for the crime. As someome pointed out earlier, physically stealing a CD from a music store is a misdemeanor; this makes putting up a copy of a file a felony. Does this make any sense?
Yes. Here's why:
If you steal a CD from a music store, that is one sale potentially lost.
If you make an album available on a P2P network, that is many more sales potentially lost.
I, too believe in fair use, and the balance of rights. But that's just not what is happening on KaZaA et al, and you know it. "Fair use" and "providing copyrighted material for download on a P2P network" are about as dissimilar as you can get.
Yes. An FTP server meets the test of "enabling software." But this law doesn't make FTP servers illegal. It just means that a clear and conspicuous warning has to pop up and say "This software could create a security and privacy risk on your computer," and allow the user to cancel if this is not what the user wants.
This bill does not make FTP illegal, nor does it make P2P illegal.
What this bill does is make trading copyrighted material a felony. It adds teeth to existing laws, because the existing laws obviously aren't acting as a deterrent.
This bill would not make what you are doing illegal, nor is it making P2P illegal.
What it would make a felony, however, is "the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.''
The only negative impact that this could have for you is that without the illegal trade of movies and music, your audience will quite likely become much, much smaller.
He the the chance to end the war YEARS earlier, without the massive loss of the life that occured because of starvation of freezing, but he had to have his Star Wars program, which the Russian government viewed as a threat (and rightly so). So, in the end, Reagan just prolonged the conflict, caused more civilians to die, and increased our debt. This is why I agree with the parent that he was one of the worst presidents ever. But I'm one of the few INFORMED citizens it seems, so I'm in the minority on that view.
I'm not sure if I would have voted for Reagan in 1980 or 1984 (I was born five months into his first term), but I did not vote for Bush in 2000, and I do not intend to vote for him in 2004. That said, you've got SDI totally wrong:
A number of Soviet sources have since reported that their bosses in the Kremlin, starting with Mikhail Gorbachev, were thrown into turmoil by Reagan's idea. They were not sure the United States could make good on the idea, but they knew they could not. To them, whether SDI
would work was less important than whether it could work. The United States had challenged them to a race they could not win. Rather than bankrupting themselves trying, they left the game.
Former Soviet foreign minister Aleksandr Bessmertnykh told a Princeton University conference in 1993 that SDI "made us realize we were in a very dangerous spot." The proposal, he said, accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union.
--David Gergen, Eyewitness to Power
So it looks as though you are not as INFORMED as you believe you are regarding SDI's effect on the Cold War. Perhaps you should read less Noam Chomsky and more books by people who actually know what was going on.
How much are you going to charge me for service and support?
Re:Hardware vs Software
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 2, Funny
They can't take the parts, assemble them and sell a "Taurus."
No. The bastards take the parts, assemble them, call it a "Sable," and then charge even more!
Re:Hardware vs Software
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No.
This is like Ford allowing its replacement engines only to be put in Ford vehicles requiring repair, and disallowing them to be used to build a new, third-party vehicle.
Packaging and other expenses that stay constant per unit sold regardless (mostly) of how much that is.
It takes less time for a minimum-wage teenager to fill two Super Gigantor fry holders than it does for him or her to fill four itty-bitty kids meal ones.
It takes less time for the same minimum-wage earner to assemble a burger with two patties than it does for him or her to assemble two burgers with one patty each.
It takes less time for the same minimum-wage earner to fill one 40oz cup with soda than it does for him or her to fill two 20oz cups with soda.
Buying a product like Dr. Pepper, laundry detergent, or cooking oil in bulk is cheaper for a different reason. Those things are cheaper because there's less packaging involved, the packaging tends to be more utilitarian, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't MS send atleast an email alert to Volume Licensees?
Ridiculous!
You, sir, are a retard.
You're nicely trying to avoid the point.
Many people who download a copyrighted song from KaZaA are doing so to avoid paying for it. Having these songs available for download enables this behavior AND INFRINGES UPON THE COPYRIGHT.
Loitering does not result in somebody obtaining a product without paying for it.
What exactly is stolen when you download music?
The record company's exclusive right to copy the song is being infringed upon. Given that this results in loss of sales (while the exact degree to which revenue is being impacted cannot be quantified, you'd have to be living in a fantasy land to assert that the impact is "minimal" or "non-existent"), this is, most definitely, theft.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Actually, you still have the presumption of innocence in civil court, too. It's just that the standard of "guilt" in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence" by 9 out of 12 jurors instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" by 12 out of 12 jurors in criminal cases.
That's why the families went after him in Civil court. They figured they could win there.
Furthermore, you know exactly how this bill will be used if it passes. The RIAA will immediately choose 4 random college students out of their database of pirates and land them in jail for 5 years, to scare the others away from KaZaA. That's ridiculous. The billion-dollar suits were bad enough, now they want to land them in jail? Well, I guess that prevents the community from making it up with PayPal donations.
Two observations:
1) They'd have to compile a new list of pirates after the law became effective. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution.
2) If the students don't want to end up in jail, they can (get this) STOP PUTTING SHIT ON KAZAA FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO DOWNLOAD. It's just that simple. If you don't want to be prosecuted, don't break the law.
Why do you guys find this so hard to comprehend?
And neither competing nor recieving free things are felonies.
Competing, in and of itself, is not a felony. Receiving goods that you know are stolen is indeed a felony, or, at least, a very serious misdemeanor.
So making good independent music should be a felony too, since it also could cause many pontential sales losses.
What the hell planet are you living on? There's a difference between competition and getting something for free.
Part of the reason that their "crappy music" isn't selling is because people are downloading it for free online. Not everybody is as pure of heart as you obviously are.
I condone a punishment appropriate for the crime. As someome pointed out earlier, physically stealing a CD from a music store is a misdemeanor; this makes putting up a copy of a file a felony. Does this make any sense?
Yes. Here's why:
If you steal a CD from a music store, that is one sale potentially lost.
If you make an album available on a P2P network, that is many more sales potentially lost.
I, too believe in fair use, and the balance of rights. But that's just not what is happening on KaZaA et al, and you know it. "Fair use" and "providing copyrighted material for download on a P2P network" are about as dissimilar as you can get.
Do you condone spyware?
Do you condone the illegal trade of copyrighted material?
If you answered "no" to either of the two questions above, this bill is for you.
Yes. An FTP server meets the test of "enabling software." But this law doesn't make FTP servers illegal. It just means that a clear and conspicuous warning has to pop up and say "This software could create a security and privacy risk on your computer," and allow the user to cancel if this is not what the user wants.
This bill does not make FTP illegal, nor does it make P2P illegal.
What this bill does is make trading copyrighted material a felony. It adds teeth to existing laws, because the existing laws obviously aren't acting as a deterrent.
This bill would not make what you are doing illegal, nor is it making P2P illegal.
What it would make a felony, however, is "the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.''
The only negative impact that this could have for you is that without the illegal trade of movies and music, your audience will quite likely become much, much smaller.
I'm not sure if I would have voted for Reagan in 1980 or 1984 (I was born five months into his first term), but I did not vote for Bush in 2000, and I do not intend to vote for him in 2004. That said, you've got SDI totally wrong:
So it looks as though you are not as INFORMED as you believe you are regarding SDI's effect on the Cold War. Perhaps you should read less Noam Chomsky and more books by people who actually know what was going on.
Yes. There's a lot of people scrambling to emigrate to China.
Retard.
When Apple handed out copies of the Developer Preview at WWDC, they didn't hand out G5s to go along with them.
How much are you going to charge me for service and support?
They can't take the parts, assemble them and sell a "Taurus."
No. The bastards take the parts, assemble them, call it a "Sable," and then charge even more!
No.
This is like Ford allowing its replacement engines only to be put in Ford vehicles requiring repair, and disallowing them to be used to build a new, third-party vehicle.
Perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
I think you're thinking of Sallie's sister Fannie. Sallie does student loans.
No rich scholarship boys. Just lots of annoying Physical Education and Criminal Justice majors.
Don't forget The South.
The person who consumes less, pays more for it. The same thing WILL (and is now occuring) with the internet.
Once again, that is partly because there is a certain amount of overhead involved in each transaction, regardless of how big it is.
It's also because they can get away with it.
Packaging and other expenses that stay constant per unit sold regardless (mostly) of how much that is.
It takes less time for a minimum-wage teenager to fill two Super Gigantor fry holders than it does for him or her to fill four itty-bitty kids meal ones.
It takes less time for the same minimum-wage earner to assemble a burger with two patties than it does for him or her to assemble two burgers with one patty each.
It takes less time for the same minimum-wage earner to fill one 40oz cup with soda than it does for him or her to fill two 20oz cups with soda.
Buying a product like Dr. Pepper, laundry detergent, or cooking oil in bulk is cheaper for a different reason. Those things are cheaper because there's less packaging involved, the packaging tends to be more utilitarian, etc.
If you have multiple PSTN trunks for inbound calls, they typically all ring to the same thing (i.e., reception, or an auto-attendant).
Read his earlier posts. His theory is not at all interesting, and it has no merit. It is unoriginal rationalizing.
I would have been much more polite, but people have attempted politeness in the past with him, with no result.
Spades are spades. I call them as such. You, sir, are at least a club.