First, didn't the OP read the stinking memo? It's all about hedging against the risk that the price would fall -- it doesn't really say anything about canceling the 10b5-1 plan. This is just jumping on the "Corporate Executives are Bad" stereotype.
Secondly, 10b5-1 has not "long been considered ripe for abuse." There is a very narrow factual scenario where it could allow an insider to make money off inside information. But, it's difficult.
Here's the problem: insiders cannot trade stock if they possess non-public material information about a Company. When a corporate executive receives most of his compensation in stock, this is a problem for him, since they often have non-public material information.
So, to solve that, the SEC came up with rule 10b5-1: at a time when you don't have that sort of information, you can set up a future trading plan where you tell your broker "this is when you buy; this is when you sell," and that's the end of your input unless you cancel the plan. The existence of the plan is made public.
And, that's the narrow place where you can escape the insider trading rules: if your plan calls for you to sell some stock, but you know that the price is probably about to rise, you can just cancel the plan and hold on to those shares. Even though you didn't actually trade, the decision NOT to trade was based on inside information.
Now, the executive still has those shares, and so he needs to create another 10b5-1 plan, which (again) is made public. However, now the SEC questions whether either plan was "entered into in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade" the insider trading rules. As a result, trades made under either plan can be called into question.
The end result is that by canceling a trade under a 10b5-1 plan, the executive makes it much more difficult to ever get rid of his stock.
it forbids the use of any federal agencies or resources to assist in partisan activities
I think that you mean political activities. If it actually banned partisan activities, the Congress would have to shut down.
You are correct -- there can be emails which are both. And, if you're trying to figure out how to send such an email, which law do you follow? If you send it through the official White House mail server, Henry Waxman will go after you for using White House servers for political business. If you send it through the RNC, he'll go after you for not using the White House servers.
I think the answer should be that you go with the Hatch Act, but it's not 100% clear, and it's a huge catch-22. (One that President Clinton also ran into.)
The best answer should be that the President should never made decisions for political reasons. But, that's a standard that has been violated by every president since General Washington.
There is a completely acceptable reason for going through the RNC, and it's the same reason that the Clinton administration used similar services at the DNC: there are two competing acts. You've mentioned the Presidential Records Act, which is intended to protect the official records of the White House. There's also the Hatch Act, which (among other things) prevents government computers from being used for political activities. Emails regarding political activities went through the RNC servers (or, in the case of the Clinton Administration, the DNC servers); emails regarding activities as President, i.e. the Presidential Records, are supposed to go through the White House email system, where they are backed up and archived. So, you cannot infer an intent to violate the Presidential Records Act merely from the fact that outside services were used.
It's important to distinguish between the IP itself and embodiments of that. And, there are property rights in both, which sometime collide.
For example, at least one court has found that you cannot take pictures from a book, add something to them, and resell them. (The reason is that you're creating a derivative work of the original, which infringes the copyright.)
My original point was that it's silly to complain about people calling IP "property" because, legally, it acts just like property. The dividing line between "property" and "non-property" is really whether it can be owned, in any sense, or not (look it up -- that's how dictionaries generally define it). For example, in the US, many people used to be property; now they're not. 100 years ago, the airspace over my land was considered my property; now it's not. To the American Indians, you could not "own" a piece of land; now you can.
Once you get used to the idea that "property" means "something capable of ownership," the next thing you have to ask is what does "ownership" mean? And, that's where property rights come in. Once you know what those rights are, you can look around and notice that those rights actually attach to all sorts of things that didn't used to be thought of as "property," but really are: fishing rights, pollution rights, support rights and so on. They attach to "Intellectual Property" as well.
Well, recognize that Class A (i.e. real property), in your example, only has those properties because they have been assigned to it. Real property has no inherent characteristic that makes it susceptible to, say, the rights to exclude. Native Americans, for example, didn't have the idea that land could be owned. That idea developed in law over many years. Heck, if you think about it, the right to convey real property sounds really dumb -- you can't move it and take it with you; how are on earth are you conveying it? How on earth is it possible for Ted Turner to "own" land that he's never even seen?
Copyright has similarly developed in law over many years, albeit much more recently.
Heck, if you buy Lockean Property theory, the copyright in my song or book is even more my property than, say, my land, because they is the product of my labor?
So, lawyers have been thinking about the nature of property for hundreds of years, and have come up with the idea that property is a bundle of rights in a thing. And, there are some very real parallels between Real Property (ie land) and Intellectual Property:
The right to exclude: If you own real property, you can prevent trespassing; if you own intellectual property, you can prevent infringement.
The right to convey: If you own real property, you can sell it; if you own IP, you can sell it.
The right to subdivide: If you own real property, you can break it up into smaller units, or sell off parts of it (like, for example, Mineral rights). Similarly, with Copyright, you can sell off the right to distribute or the right to publicly perform it, and with patent, you can sell off the right to import it, or make products based on it.
The right to control how something is used: If you own real property, you get to say what happens with it. Same things with IP. (Both of these have limits)
The main complaint about IP as property comes from it not being "rivalrous" -- unlike, say, a coffee cup, which can only be used by one person at a time, IP can be used by any number of people at a time. However, there are non-rivalrous goods out there in which we attach property rights. For example, a public golf course near us has a public easement over the back yards of adjoining houses -- if you hit your golf ball onto their lot, you have the right to go and get it. That is a non-rivalrous property right: my ability to get my golf ball is not impeded by the number of other people who have that right.
IP resembles real or personal property a lot more than it resembles anything else.
Yes. I know exactly what economic meddling he did.
The depression started with the Black Friday Crash in October 1929, but was made dramatically worse by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act the following year that raised the price of foreign goods and forced foreign governments to reciprocate, killing all the foreign markets for US goods. FDR should
As far as economic meddling, FDR created deflation in the middle of the great depression by refusing to issue more dollars in exchange for gold. As a result, people stopped spending money because currency was so hard to come by. It was common for people to use localized scrip just because hard currency was so hard to come by. His brain-trusters (a number of whom had gone to the Soviet Union and become enamored with centralized control) experimented with the economy to the point that nobody was willing to take any risks because they never knew what the brain trusters would take over. Read up on Schechter Poultry and the NIRA to see what economic meddling is.
I don't deny that there were some good things that came out of the Depression -- the FDIC is certainly one; the jury's still out on Social Security. However, the depth of the depression itself was largely FDR's fault.
It's not at all clear that the SEC was necessary -- not many people are aware that the states have their own securities regulation schemes which work fairly well.
It's interesting that you didn't mention the FSLIC, another FDR invention that went bankrupt and stuck US taxpayers with about $1T in losses.
Speaking of Smoot-Hawley, note the democrat's antagonism to NAFTA. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Saying that the population is somewhat center-right is a bit like the Lake Wobegon thing: where all the children are above average. By definition, on average Americans are right on the center. That's what makes it the center.
However, you can't claim that people in the democratic party are, by definition, liberal. North Carolina, for example, has been predominately democratic since the Civil War, yet kept electing Jesse Helms.
I wouldn't go holding up FDR as a shining example of liberal success -- his constant fiddling and abysmal monetary policy ended up stretching the great depression out for a decade.
Right. Why is it hypocritical to have a different foreign policy for, say, Canada than for Iran? You're the one who said that we should treat all countries the same.
China and Cuba are not equally situated. China didn't release 1/10th of its population adrift in boats so they could reach our shores. Cuba did. China has had a number of leaders in the past 50 years; Cuba has had one. China, as a civilization, has been around for thousands of years. Cuba, a couple of hundred.
They are two vastly different countries. My marriage point was just about relationships -- a foreign policy defines our side of a relationship with a foreign country. Just like an individual is not a hypocrite for not treating everybody exactly the same, neither are countries.
I'm not even sure that linking statically creates a derivative work, as much as it creates a compilation. It's more similar to including a poem in a book of poems than it is to changing the poem itself. A derivative work involves changing or recasting the original -- static linking doesn't do this. The reason that you can't (w/o permission) distribute a program with an embedded library is more basic -- you're violating the distribution right of the library (and, presumably, the duplication right also.)
It's not a completely clear area of law. But, it seems wrong that using an interface exported by another piece of code (whether via a procedure call, a remote object invocation or just sending an appropriately formatted text message to a socket) creates a derivative work.
I generally agree with your points, but I note that if the press turns against you, people won't see your speeches (or they'll only see the gaffes that everybody, even Obama, makes), and may wipe out your appeal to centrist and younger voters. How the press treats a candidate is exceptionally important, because most people's impression of a candidate is drawn solely from the press. He's can't make enough door-to-door visits to undo the damage if the press turns against him.
You realize, of course, that the only real "issue" you brought up is the war -- basically, you're saying "Obama gives good speeches and people like him." I agree with both of those, and think that they are great qualities in a President. But, they've carried him about as far as he's going to go -- he will have to win the general election on the issues. I hope we see more of what he believes, apart from this vacuous "audacity of hope" crap.
I don't think "Hypocrite" means what you think it does.
Am I a hypocrite because I dated several different people before deciding to marry one of them? By your view, I should have either married them all, or none of them. That would be the fair "even handed" policy. Of course, it would ignore the individual characteristics of each of those people.
No country in the world has every approached foreign policy in that way. Except, that is, perhaps for a few xenophobic governments that completely avoided all outside contact.
I'm not at all certain that Obama is the tougher candidate to beat -- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.
The bigger problem for both of them is that they both have to keep left to win the primary, delaying their inevitable tack back to the center to try to win the independent vote. But, McCain is already in the center. Part of their strategy is going to be to pain him as a right-wing extremist, but that's going to be a hard sell when bills with names like "McCain-Kennedy" and "McCain-Feingold" floating around. So, instead, they're going to trot out a tried-and-true political tactic: character assassination. See, for example, ahref=http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.htmlrel=url2html-25095http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.html>
Why should the US adopt exactly the same policy toward every communist country? Cuba and China do not have a common history, do not share a common culture, have vastly different populations and, despite a few similarities, have vastly different governments. 10% of the population of China does not live in America; 10% of Cuba's does. China is half-way around the world; Cuba is under 100 miles away. China did not send 125,000 Chinese to the US in 1980. China has Of course US Cuba policy differs from its China policy.
You have a knack for finding Exxon-funded stuff to link to. Why is that?
Because it comes up prominently in Google.
I'm not saying that Global Warming doesn't exist. I'm saying that while a lot of people are claiming "Consensus," what I see looks a whole lot more like "majority opinion" than "consensus." There is a big difference between the two.
In any case, what matters is not who somebody is funded by, but the merits of their argument. A valid argument remains so even when Exxon agrees with it.
Well, that's kinda funny considering that I was replying to a post citing to Wikipedia. Exactly who created the Wikipedia article and who were they funded by?
You realize, of course, that if I should discount the website because of its funding, then I should also discount all the research done by scientists whose research funding would dry up if Climate Change proved to be a fiction. They're not neutral either.
If there's a scientific consensus, then I would expect nearly every scientist to agree on that consensus. (After all, isn't that the definition?) Yet, these pesky scientists seem to have a tough time agreeing. Here's another example. If there was a consensus, I would expect an MIT professor of Atmospheric Science to, at least, be aware of it.
Well, except that there weren't any defensive measures taken here -- they just rejected Microsoft's offer. Saying "no" to a merger is not a defensive measure.
I don't know whether a court would consider your situation to be a transfer of a single copy or creation of one copy and a simultaneous destruction of another. If it's a transfer of a single copy, then I agree that it would not be an infringement (unless there was some license that you're violating.) I think it's a clever idea and can think of some legitimate uses -- the Internet equivalent of the used record store.
The problem, though is that traditional downloading leaves a copy at the server. I'm not aware of any application that actually does what you suggest. So, in the typical case, the person doing the downloading is infringing the reproduction right. The person running the server is also infringing copyright, but this time it's the distribution right.
Copyright infringement is not theft. Trespass is a much better analogy.
Overselling network capacity has been going on since networks were invented. It happens in Cell Phones (which is why emergency personnel often can't use cell phones at a major event) & long distance (at least pre-internet... The telco did not have nearly as many lines going to the long-distance switches as they had to their subscribers).
If there's a change in the usage assumptions underlying the overselling ratio, then the ISPs are going to have to increase capacity. And, that's going to cost money. That money is going to have to come from some place, and there are only 3 potential sources:
(1) The ISP's customer (2) The remote end (3) The government
If the answer is (2), then you are, rapidly, going to see free high-bandwidth services disappear, as those service's costs are going to increase. If the answer is either (1) or (2), then at least the customer is going to have to bear an economic cost when he does something that imposes a cost on the ISP. That feedback mechanism, basic in economics, will keep him from wasting bandwidth. If the answer is (3), then both the user and the remote end freeload, each has an incentive to waste bandwidth, which will drive up the cost to the government.
Note that in any of the three options, the customer, in the end, pays -- the only question is who he pays it to: the ISP directly, the ISP through the remote end, or to the ISP, filtered through the tax system. (Actually, under the tax system, he may share that cost with people who don't use the internet at all.)
So, again, UNDER PRO-CD, the EULA is binding. The buyer assents by not returning the package after (1) having notice, at purchase, that there would be additional terms, and (2) having a chance to read those terms. It's not a question of the contract being voided -- the contract never formed.
With that basis, UCC 2-401 allows the parties to agree on when (and, presumably if) title will transfer. If the EULA says that title does not transfer, and the buyer has assented to the EULA, then parties have agreed that title does not transfer. And, under Pro-CD, if the buyer doesn't return the package after having had a chance to read the terms, then the buyer assents
I'm not sure if you're arguing what the law should be, or what it is.
Downloading is illegal because it is making an unauthorized copy. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to copy and to authorize others to copy.
Traditional radio does not make a copy, so the recipient is not infringing anything.
Streaming via the Internet (or any digital streaming) is another question, because intermediate buffer copies are created, and whether those are sufficient to constitute a copy is still an open question. Of course, the other question is whether the end use can be liable when they didn't intend to create any copy.
If you are recording the broadcast, then absent a fair use or other defense, you are infringing the copyright, because you are making a copy.
"Making Available" has, in fact, held to be a violation of the distribution right. I think the judge was wrong, but it's certainly enough to be liable for copyright infringement.
A live recording is also an infringement. Technically, it's not copyright infringement, but the remedies are the same. (See 17 U.S.C. 1101 ) And, your state may have a law against it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
First, didn't the OP read the stinking memo? It's all about hedging against the risk that the price would fall -- it doesn't really say anything about canceling the 10b5-1 plan. This is just jumping on the "Corporate Executives are Bad" stereotype.
Secondly, 10b5-1 has not "long been considered ripe for abuse." There is a very narrow factual scenario where it could allow an insider to make money off inside information. But, it's difficult.
Here's the problem: insiders cannot trade stock if they possess non-public material information about a Company. When a corporate executive receives most of his compensation in stock, this is a problem for him, since they often have non-public material information.
So, to solve that, the SEC came up with rule 10b5-1: at a time when you don't have that sort of information, you can set up a future trading plan where you tell your broker "this is when you buy; this is when you sell," and that's the end of your input unless you cancel the plan. The existence of the plan is made public.
And, that's the narrow place where you can escape the insider trading rules: if your plan calls for you to sell some stock, but you know that the price is probably about to rise, you can just cancel the plan and hold on to those shares. Even though you didn't actually trade, the decision NOT to trade was based on inside information.
Now, the executive still has those shares, and so he needs to create another 10b5-1 plan, which (again) is made public. However, now the SEC questions whether either plan was "entered into in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade" the insider trading rules. As a result, trades made under either plan can be called into question.
The end result is that by canceling a trade under a 10b5-1 plan, the executive makes it much more difficult to ever get rid of his stock.
There is a completely acceptable reason for going through the RNC, and it's the same reason that the Clinton administration used similar services at the DNC: there are two competing acts. You've mentioned the Presidential Records Act, which is intended to protect the official records of the White House. There's also the Hatch Act, which (among other things) prevents government computers from being used for political activities. Emails regarding political activities went through the RNC servers (or, in the case of the Clinton Administration, the DNC servers); emails regarding activities as President, i.e. the Presidential Records, are supposed to go through the White House email system, where they are backed up and archived. So, you cannot infer an intent to violate the Presidential Records Act merely from the fact that outside services were used.
It's important to distinguish between the IP itself and embodiments of that. And, there are property rights in both, which sometime collide.
For example, at least one court has found that you cannot take pictures from a book, add something to them, and resell them. (The reason is that you're creating a derivative work of the original, which infringes the copyright.)
My original point was that it's silly to complain about people calling IP "property" because, legally, it acts just like property. The dividing line between "property" and "non-property" is really whether it can be owned, in any sense, or not (look it up -- that's how dictionaries generally define it). For example, in the US, many people used to be property; now they're not. 100 years ago, the airspace over my land was considered my property; now it's not. To the American Indians, you could not "own" a piece of land; now you can.
Once you get used to the idea that "property" means "something capable of ownership," the next thing you have to ask is what does "ownership" mean? And, that's where property rights come in. Once you know what those rights are, you can look around and notice that those rights actually attach to all sorts of things that didn't used to be thought of as "property," but really are: fishing rights, pollution rights, support rights and so on. They attach to "Intellectual Property" as well.
Well, recognize that Class A (i.e. real property), in your example, only has those properties because they have been assigned to it. Real property has no inherent characteristic that makes it susceptible to, say, the rights to exclude. Native Americans, for example, didn't have the idea that land could be owned. That idea developed in law over many years. Heck, if you think about it, the right to convey real property sounds really dumb -- you can't move it and take it with you; how are on earth are you conveying it? How on earth is it possible for Ted Turner to "own" land that he's never even seen?
Copyright has similarly developed in law over many years, albeit much more recently.
Heck, if you buy Lockean Property theory, the copyright in my song or book is even more my property than, say, my land, because they is the product of my labor?
Don't you pay enough taxes already?
Well, if you get income from your IP, then you have to pay tax on it, just like you have to pay tax on any other income.
There are plenty of types of property that you do not pay property tax on. The pair of pants I'm wearing, for example.
So, lawyers have been thinking about the nature of property for hundreds of years, and have come up with the idea that property is a bundle of rights in a thing. And, there are some very real parallels between Real Property (ie land) and Intellectual Property:
The right to exclude: If you own real property, you can prevent trespassing; if you own intellectual property, you can prevent infringement.
The right to convey: If you own real property, you can sell it; if you own IP, you can sell it.
The right to subdivide: If you own real property, you can break it up into smaller units, or sell off parts of it (like, for example, Mineral rights). Similarly, with Copyright, you can sell off the right to distribute or the right to publicly perform it, and with patent, you can sell off the right to import it, or make products based on it.
The right to control how something is used: If you own real property, you get to say what happens with it. Same things with IP. (Both of these have limits)
The main complaint about IP as property comes from it not being "rivalrous" -- unlike, say, a coffee cup, which can only be used by one person at a time, IP can be used by any number of people at a time. However, there are non-rivalrous goods out there in which we attach property rights. For example, a public golf course near us has a public easement over the back yards of adjoining houses -- if you hit your golf ball onto their lot, you have the right to go and get it. That is a non-rivalrous property right: my ability to get my golf ball is not impeded by the number of other people who have that right.
IP resembles real or personal property a lot more than it resembles anything else.
Yes. I know exactly what economic meddling he did.
The depression started with the Black Friday Crash in October 1929, but was made dramatically worse by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act the following year that raised the price of foreign goods and forced foreign governments to reciprocate, killing all the foreign markets for US goods. FDR should
As far as economic meddling, FDR created deflation in the middle of the great depression by refusing to issue more dollars in exchange for gold. As a result, people stopped spending money because currency was so hard to come by. It was common for people to use localized scrip just because hard currency was so hard to come by. His brain-trusters (a number of whom had gone to the Soviet Union and become enamored with centralized control) experimented with the economy to the point that nobody was willing to take any risks because they never knew what the brain trusters would take over. Read up on Schechter Poultry and the NIRA to see what economic meddling is.
I don't deny that there were some good things that came out of the Depression -- the FDIC is certainly one; the jury's still out on Social Security. However, the depth of the depression itself was largely FDR's fault.
It's not at all clear that the SEC was necessary -- not many people are aware that the states have their own securities regulation schemes which work fairly well.
It's interesting that you didn't mention the FSLIC, another FDR invention that went bankrupt and stuck US taxpayers with about $1T in losses.
Speaking of Smoot-Hawley, note the democrat's antagonism to NAFTA. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Saying that the population is somewhat center-right is a bit like the Lake Wobegon thing: where all the children are above average. By definition, on average Americans are right on the center. That's what makes it the center.
However, you can't claim that people in the democratic party are, by definition, liberal. North Carolina, for example, has been predominately democratic since the Civil War, yet kept electing Jesse Helms.
I wouldn't go holding up FDR as a shining example of liberal success -- his constant fiddling and abysmal monetary policy ended up stretching the great depression out for a decade.
Right. Why is it hypocritical to have a different foreign policy for, say, Canada than for Iran? You're the one who said that we should treat all countries the same.
China and Cuba are not equally situated. China didn't release 1/10th of its population adrift in boats so they could reach our shores. Cuba did. China has had a number of leaders in the past 50 years; Cuba has had one. China, as a civilization, has been around for thousands of years. Cuba, a couple of hundred.
They are two vastly different countries. My marriage point was just about relationships -- a foreign policy defines our side of a relationship with a foreign country. Just like an individual is not a hypocrite for not treating everybody exactly the same, neither are countries.
I'm not even sure that linking statically creates a derivative work, as much as it creates a compilation. It's more similar to including a poem in a book of poems than it is to changing the poem itself. A derivative work involves changing or recasting the original -- static linking doesn't do this. The reason that you can't (w/o permission) distribute a program with an embedded library is more basic -- you're violating the distribution right of the library (and, presumably, the duplication right also.)
It's not a completely clear area of law. But, it seems wrong that using an interface exported by another piece of code (whether via a procedure call, a remote object invocation or just sending an appropriately formatted text message to a socket) creates a derivative work.
I generally agree with your points, but I note that if the press turns against you, people won't see your speeches (or they'll only see the gaffes that everybody, even Obama, makes), and may wipe out your appeal to centrist and younger voters. How the press treats a candidate is exceptionally important, because most people's impression of a candidate is drawn solely from the press. He's can't make enough door-to-door visits to undo the damage if the press turns against him.
You realize, of course, that the only real "issue" you brought up is the war -- basically, you're saying "Obama gives good speeches and people like him." I agree with both of those, and think that they are great qualities in a President. But, they've carried him about as far as he's going to go -- he will have to win the general election on the issues. I hope we see more of what he believes, apart from this vacuous "audacity of hope" crap.
I don't think "Hypocrite" means what you think it does.
Am I a hypocrite because I dated several different people before deciding to marry one of them? By your view, I should have either married them all, or none of them. That would be the fair "even handed" policy. Of course, it would ignore the individual characteristics of each of those people.
No country in the world has every approached foreign policy in that way. Except, that is, perhaps for a few xenophobic governments that completely avoided all outside contact.
Don't forget the press, which until now has pretty much given him a free ride. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/press-gives-obama-a-rougher-ride-over-free-trade-and-chicago-politics-791347.html
I'm not at all certain that Obama is the tougher candidate to beat -- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.
The bigger problem for both of them is that they both have to keep left to win the primary, delaying their inevitable tack back to the center to try to win the independent vote. But, McCain is already in the center. Part of their strategy is going to be to pain him as a right-wing extremist, but that's going to be a hard sell when bills with names like "McCain-Kennedy" and "McCain-Feingold" floating around. So, instead, they're going to trot out a tried-and-true political tactic: character assassination. See, for example, ahref=http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.htmlrel=url2html-25095http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.html>
Why should the US adopt exactly the same policy toward every communist country? Cuba and China do not have a common history, do not share a common culture, have vastly different populations and, despite a few similarities, have vastly different governments. 10% of the population of China does not live in America; 10% of Cuba's does. China is half-way around the world; Cuba is under 100 miles away. China did not send 125,000 Chinese to the US in 1980. China has Of course US Cuba policy differs from its China policy.
Because it comes up prominently in Google.
I'm not saying that Global Warming doesn't exist. I'm saying that while a lot of people are claiming "Consensus," what I see looks a whole lot more like "majority opinion" than "consensus." There is a big difference between the two.
In any case, what matters is not who somebody is funded by, but the merits of their argument. A valid argument remains so even when Exxon agrees with it.
Well, that's kinda funny considering that I was replying to a post citing to Wikipedia. Exactly who created the Wikipedia article and who were they funded by?
You realize, of course, that if I should discount the website because of its funding, then I should also discount all the research done by scientists whose research funding would dry up if Climate Change proved to be a fiction. They're not neutral either.
If there's a scientific consensus, then I would expect nearly every scientist to agree on that consensus. (After all, isn't that the definition?) Yet, these pesky scientists seem to have a tough time agreeing. Here's another example. If there was a consensus, I would expect an MIT professor of Atmospheric Science to, at least, be aware of it.
You mean this consenus?
Of course, if the US did need to do that bombing, it probably would have already happened.
The obvious hot spot where such bombing might be necessary is Iranian nuclear sites.
Well, except that there weren't any defensive measures taken here -- they just rejected Microsoft's offer.
Saying "no" to a merger is not a defensive measure.
I don't know whether a court would consider your situation to be a transfer of a single copy or creation of one copy and a simultaneous destruction of another. If it's a transfer of a single copy, then I agree that it would not be an infringement (unless there was some license that you're violating.) I think it's a clever idea and can think of some legitimate uses -- the Internet equivalent of the used record store.
The problem, though is that traditional downloading leaves a copy at the server. I'm not aware of any application that actually does what you suggest. So, in the typical case, the person doing the downloading is infringing the reproduction right. The person running the server is also infringing copyright, but this time it's the distribution right.
Copyright infringement is not theft. Trespass is a much better analogy.
Overselling network capacity has been going on since networks were invented. It happens in Cell Phones (which is why emergency personnel often can't use cell phones at a major event) & long distance (at least pre-internet... The telco did not have nearly as many lines going to the long-distance switches as they had to their subscribers).
If there's a change in the usage assumptions underlying the overselling ratio, then the ISPs are going to have to increase capacity. And, that's going to cost money. That money is going to have to come from some place, and there are only 3 potential sources:
(1) The ISP's customer
(2) The remote end
(3) The government
If the answer is (2), then you are, rapidly, going to see free high-bandwidth services disappear, as those service's costs are going to increase. If the answer is either (1) or (2), then at least the customer is going to have to bear an economic cost when he does something that imposes a cost on the ISP. That feedback mechanism, basic in economics, will keep him from wasting bandwidth. If the answer is (3), then both the user and the remote end freeload, each has an incentive to waste bandwidth, which will drive up the cost to the government.
Note that in any of the three options, the customer, in the end, pays -- the only question is who he pays it to: the ISP directly, the ISP through the remote end, or to the ISP, filtered through the tax system. (Actually, under the tax system, he may share that cost with people who don't use the internet at all.)
So, again, UNDER PRO-CD, the EULA is binding. The buyer assents by not returning the package after (1) having notice, at purchase, that there would be additional terms, and (2) having a chance to read those terms. It's not a question of the contract being voided -- the contract never formed.
With that basis, UCC 2-401 allows the parties to agree on when (and, presumably if) title will transfer. If the EULA says that title does not transfer, and the buyer has assented to the EULA, then parties have agreed that title does not transfer. And, under Pro-CD, if the buyer doesn't return the package after having had a chance to read the terms, then the buyer assents
I'm not sure if you're arguing what the law should be, or what it is.
Downloading is illegal because it is making an unauthorized copy. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to copy and to authorize others to copy.
Traditional radio does not make a copy, so the recipient is not infringing anything.
Streaming via the Internet (or any digital streaming) is another question, because intermediate buffer copies are created, and whether those are sufficient to constitute a copy is still an open question. Of course, the other question is whether the end use can be liable when they didn't intend to create any copy.
If you are recording the broadcast, then absent a fair use or other defense, you are infringing the copyright, because you are making a copy.
"Making Available" has, in fact, held to be a violation of the distribution right. I think the judge was wrong, but it's certainly enough to be liable for copyright infringement.
A live recording is also an infringement. Technically, it's not copyright infringement, but the remedies are the same. (See 17 U.S.C. 1101 ) And, your state may have a law against it as well.