True in almost everything but freenet and some obscure ass tool promoted by the EFF. Considering that neither of them work reasonably for the illicit activity being talked about here (they are slow as hell) I don't exactly see your point.
Now you are talking about criminal law aspects of copyright infringement. In which case the RIAA demands oh say 0% of that $250,000 because it is a criminal matter. They get none of it. Also from everything you mentioned that doesn't sound like it is on a per-song basis.
Most of the settlement offers by the RIAA are around $6-8000. How you are getting "$250,000 is what they demand" per song I don't understand. These settlements aren't offered by the RIAA and then negotiated lower in most cases. So no, $250,000 per song is not what they are demanding.
"The idea you can violate a patent simply by writing something seems absurd." Exactly. This is at least part of the reason math isn't patentable. When you look at patents on say RSA encryption algorithms... ok sure its a software algorithm, but christ it is really just math.
Show me ONE settlement went for 250,000 a song. Most of the RIAA settlements have been $20,000. And most of them have been over many thousand songs. Statutorily they can get around $750 per song minimum I believe but no one has actually tested this in court for someone with thousands of songs, it probably wouldn't pass due process (which normally doesn't apply to civil law, but for punitive damages, and especially in extreme cases, it can apply).
Paul Graham, I'd like you to meet Paul Graham. Sorry it was too tempting not to point out that article. Check out that second link, it is "an Apple press release being printed up as a[n]" essay blog entry. Please don't take me too seriously, but I hope people don't take your post too seriously either.
"Indeed, it isn't like you're changing the fonts, it's like you're using the fonts..." If I take a lot of your GPLed code and put it into a library, can I release all the changes I make to turn your code into a library and then write my own code that calls on the library, but keep it's source closed? Why not I'm not changing it, I'm using it. Doesn't matter if I'm just using it, the GPL prohibits this. The LGPL doesn't prohibit it but the GPL does. Now does this really apply to documents? I don't know but it isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.
Yes you find it now pretty easily. But is that because it was used for Linux for a long while? I can't say for sure but I know how page rank works and if you search for any word half the time you get something dealing with linux in the results.
Congress retroactively extended copyrights (rediculous because they are there to encourage NEW ideas to be created, not to make companies get lazy off of living on their old acheivments), why couldn't they do so for patents
The pins don't cost more than th elogic on the chips... It's hooking up the macro scale pins to the (nearing) nano scale logic that makes it expensive.
Let's assume you use a provider that uses solar. Did they get all the materials fabbed using power generated that was also green? Did the engineers who designed it eat food that was only grown by barefoot hippies handplowing fields? You can take it to far. 100% green is not a realistic goal.
Re:Before anyone jumps to conclusions...
on
Google's X Files Vanish
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The article mentions that Apple has sought patent on the genie effect... I thought the genie effect was an animation Apple used when minimizing/maximizing windows, not the dock magnification effect.
You are right, it doesn't. I just made a post that sounded somewhat plausible and that people could believe was at least somewhat based in truth because of similar situations where for example in trademark law protection can be lost fairly easily. I just kinda wanted to see if my drivel could get modded to 5. As long as you get a root level post and it is one of the first 5 posts above 1 in score you usually get modded to 5 as long as your post is not obviously flamebait. With my post modded to 4 now it will be fun to see if even with this reply it still hits 5 or if it goes straight out -1.
Yes because we all know that employeers all have a list corresponding all employee names to their slashdot IDs. I'm not saying they can't get his name from this (supoena slashdot records for IP logs..), but odds are they won't.
In some jurisdictions in the world companies have to be careful about doing this because they give up parts of their exclusive ownership on the copyright of the work in question.
I pretty much agree with everything you just said.. I don't think most of it was really in contradiction to what I said. For instance:
> Corporate welfare is pretty ingrained in our heads as being ok at this point though.
Yeah, but this law is protecting the companies from their own stupidity. Not to solve problems of illegal copying games.
Corporate welfare is almost always done to protect companies from their own stupidity, or perhaps a better term: lack of competitiveness. It is almost always used to leverage certain businesses or industries against competitors. If the competitors are beating them out, there are usually very few reasons, and I've only heard a few that are compelling, to support something that isn't flying in the market place. It typically amounts to a sort of statistical cockmongery akin to showing graphs with skewed scales at a presentation. Basically it pass off a "hardly noticible" tax on the masses (though economically even a single instance turns out to be quite noticeable, and with the amount of corporate welfare out there when viewed in aggregate it is quite noticable to the individual as well) to have a strongly noticable affect on a particular entity or industry. John McCain has had some great ideas in dealing with this problem by proposing ways where corporate welfare can be cut "all or nothing" style. It is hard for your constituents to complain that you didn't use national funds to build them a new baseball park when you point out that in doing so you prevented the rest of the damn nation from getting one as well.
"When this can't be achieved by creating superior goods, buy the competition, change laws so your idea of how it should be is legal,..." --So, capitalism leads to corporations buying the laws and making the system no longer capitalistic in nature? You are melding capitalism and democracy into one big generalization. What I think would be great is if there was an establishment clause for businesses rather than just for religions. Corporate welfare is pretty ingrained in our heads as being ok at this point though.
It's called price discrimination. It also has to do with content licensing and publisher contracts. It is bad for Sony just as it would be bad for a bar in the middle of downtown not to sell their drinks for a higher price than a bar out in boom fuck. It is still bullshit though that these laws are being passed to basically put the power of the state behind price discrimination (whereas in my example it was being used to exclude price discrimination; I feel that both are wrong)...
Great, so these chips themselves don't violate any copyrights, they just allow you to use your console as though it were a computer. Yes you can pirate software on a computer and you pirate software on a modded console--so what? Do the manufacturer's really have a right to say that you can only use content licensed from them on a machine you bought? Hell no. Unless they make you sign a contract and that is a term, then no, this is insane.
Dr. Suess sold his ideas too. Or at the least left them to his inheritors and they sold/licensed/mutilated them. So in a sense, Dr. Suess did stand still for the trashing of The Cat in the Hat, perhaps he just didn't see it coming.
Just wanted to note, the 41% rebate thing is extremely circumspect. From the linked article in the Slashdot story Most who missed out on the rebates forgot to redeem them (41%). Others lost the forms, receipts or product bar codes (25%), didn't feel the rebate was worth the effort (20%) or thought the redemption process was too complicated (14%). Thats funny, that adds up to 100%. So by the Submitter's logic 100% of people don't get a rebate on products offering one. The fact the linked to article's headline is basically a lie and the only thing that you can possibly gleam from the article is that 41% of people who don't get their rebates don't get them because they forget about them. Granted I wouldn't be surprised if the actual stat of people who didn't get their rebates was above 41%, but gleaming anything from this article is.. difficult at best.
Slashdot Mirror
True in almost everything but freenet and some obscure ass tool promoted by the EFF. Considering that neither of them work reasonably for the illicit activity being talked about here (they are slow as hell) I don't exactly see your point.
Now you are talking about criminal law aspects of copyright infringement. In which case the RIAA demands oh say 0% of that $250,000 because it is a criminal matter. They get none of it. Also from everything you mentioned that doesn't sound like it is on a per-song basis.
Most of the settlement offers by the RIAA are around $6-8000. How you are getting "$250,000 is what they demand" per song I don't understand. These settlements aren't offered by the RIAA and then negotiated lower in most cases. So no, $250,000 per song is not what they are demanding.
"The idea you can violate a patent simply by writing something seems absurd." Exactly. This is at least part of the reason math isn't patentable. When you look at patents on say RSA encryption algorithms... ok sure its a software algorithm, but christ it is really just math.
Show me ONE settlement went for 250,000 a song. Most of the RIAA settlements have been $20,000. And most of them have been over many thousand songs. Statutorily they can get around $750 per song minimum I believe but no one has actually tested this in court for someone with thousands of songs, it probably wouldn't pass due process (which normally doesn't apply to civil law, but for punitive damages, and especially in extreme cases, it can apply).
Paul Graham, I'd like you to meet Paul Graham. Sorry it was too tempting not to point out that article. Check out that second link, it is "an Apple press release being printed up as a[n]" essay blog entry. Please don't take me too seriously, but I hope people don't take your post too seriously either.
Anyone who has played Ultima Online knows the difference.
"Indeed, it isn't like you're changing the fonts, it's like you're using the fonts..." If I take a lot of your GPLed code and put it into a library, can I release all the changes I make to turn your code into a library and then write my own code that calls on the library, but keep it's source closed? Why not I'm not changing it, I'm using it. Doesn't matter if I'm just using it, the GPL prohibits this. The LGPL doesn't prohibit it but the GPL does. Now does this really apply to documents? I don't know but it isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.
Is it a "crime" or just a civil matter?
Yes you find it now pretty easily. But is that because it was used for Linux for a long while? I can't say for sure but I know how page rank works and if you search for any word half the time you get something dealing with linux in the results.
Congress retroactively extended copyrights (rediculous because they are there to encourage NEW ideas to be created, not to make companies get lazy off of living on their old acheivments), why couldn't they do so for patents
The pins don't cost more than th elogic on the chips... It's hooking up the macro scale pins to the (nearing) nano scale logic that makes it expensive.
Let's assume you use a provider that uses solar. Did they get all the materials fabbed using power generated that was also green? Did the engineers who designed it eat food that was only grown by barefoot hippies handplowing fields? You can take it to far. 100% green is not a realistic goal.
The article mentions that Apple has sought patent on the genie effect... I thought the genie effect was an animation Apple used when minimizing/maximizing windows, not the dock magnification effect.
You are right, it doesn't. I just made a post that sounded somewhat plausible and that people could believe was at least somewhat based in truth because of similar situations where for example in trademark law protection can be lost fairly easily. I just kinda wanted to see if my drivel could get modded to 5. As long as you get a root level post and it is one of the first 5 posts above 1 in score you usually get modded to 5 as long as your post is not obviously flamebait. With my post modded to 4 now it will be fun to see if even with this reply it still hits 5 or if it goes straight out -1.
Yes because we all know that employeers all have a list corresponding all employee names to their slashdot IDs. I'm not saying they can't get his name from this (supoena slashdot records for IP logs..), but odds are they won't.
In some jurisdictions in the world companies have to be careful about doing this because they give up parts of their exclusive ownership on the copyright of the work in question.
I pretty much agree with everything you just said.. I don't think most of it was really in contradiction to what I said. For instance:
> Corporate welfare is pretty ingrained in our heads as being ok at this point though.
Yeah, but this law is protecting the companies from their own stupidity. Not to solve problems of illegal copying games.
Corporate welfare is almost always done to protect companies from their own stupidity, or perhaps a better term: lack of competitiveness. It is almost always used to leverage certain businesses or industries against competitors. If the competitors are beating them out, there are usually very few reasons, and I've only heard a few that are compelling, to support something that isn't flying in the market place. It typically amounts to a sort of statistical cockmongery akin to showing graphs with skewed scales at a presentation. Basically it pass off a "hardly noticible" tax on the masses (though economically even a single instance turns out to be quite noticeable, and with the amount of corporate welfare out there when viewed in aggregate it is quite noticable to the individual as well) to have a strongly noticable affect on a particular entity or industry. John McCain has had some great ideas in dealing with this problem by proposing ways where corporate welfare can be cut "all or nothing" style. It is hard for your constituents to complain that you didn't use national funds to build them a new baseball park when you point out that in doing so you prevented the rest of the damn nation from getting one as well.
"When this can't be achieved by creating superior goods, buy the competition, change laws so your idea of how it should be is legal,..." --So, capitalism leads to corporations buying the laws and making the system no longer capitalistic in nature? You are melding capitalism and democracy into one big generalization. What I think would be great is if there was an establishment clause for businesses rather than just for religions. Corporate welfare is pretty ingrained in our heads as being ok at this point though.
It's called price discrimination. It also has to do with content licensing and publisher contracts. It is bad for Sony just as it would be bad for a bar in the middle of downtown not to sell their drinks for a higher price than a bar out in boom fuck. It is still bullshit though that these laws are being passed to basically put the power of the state behind price discrimination (whereas in my example it was being used to exclude price discrimination; I feel that both are wrong)...
I guess what I should have phrased it "Is it natural for the manufacturer's to have a right to... ."
Great, so these chips themselves don't violate any copyrights, they just allow you to use your console as though it were a computer. Yes you can pirate software on a computer and you pirate software on a modded console--so what? Do the manufacturer's really have a right to say that you can only use content licensed from them on a machine you bought? Hell no. Unless they make you sign a contract and that is a term, then no, this is insane.
Dr. Suess sold his ideas too. Or at the least left them to his inheritors and they sold/licensed/mutilated them. So in a sense, Dr. Suess did stand still for the trashing of The Cat in the Hat, perhaps he just didn't see it coming.
SCAB
Just wanted to note, the 41% rebate thing is extremely circumspect. From the linked article in the Slashdot story Most who missed out on the rebates forgot to redeem them (41%). Others lost the forms, receipts or product bar codes (25%), didn't feel the rebate was worth the effort (20%) or thought the redemption process was too complicated (14%). Thats funny, that adds up to 100%. So by the Submitter's logic 100% of people don't get a rebate on products offering one. The fact the linked to article's headline is basically a lie and the only thing that you can possibly gleam from the article is that 41% of people who don't get their rebates don't get them because they forget about them. Granted I wouldn't be surprised if the actual stat of people who didn't get their rebates was above 41%, but gleaming anything from this article is.. difficult at best.