Toll Booths only add another point of congestion. If you want to limit the traffic into an area, then collect the fee at parking lots rather than toll booths. Why waste the time and manpower collecting the fee at a toll booth when you can impose the fee on parking spaces. 22 work days a month times 5 pounds comes out to a 110 pound a month fee collected on each parking space in the city. Parking lot owners would then pass the higher fees on to the people using the spaces. Companies that provide free parking for employees would find it in their best intrest to encourage alternative transportation.
Back when Music came on LP's the record companies released 45 RPM "singles". An album with an average of 10 tracks sold for around 5 dollars, while a 45 cost 99 cents. Even tho it was called a "single" it had two tracks. The cost per track was about 50 cents for a LP or a "single" So one way of looking at it is the Labels have established a precedent that a track off the album is worth the cost ratio in simple division. A $15 CD with 15 tracks would have a value of $1 per track.
On the other hand since they called the 45s "singles" it could be argued that only the "A" side had value, and the "B" side was just filler. In this case a precedent was set by the Labels of valuing a good track at twice the average track value, so that $15 dollar CD with 15 tracks would have a value of $2 for a "single" quality track off it.
The Labels HAVE used a per track sales model in the past. It worked out good for the fans on two levels. If there was only 1 good song on an LP you could just buy the 45. This ment that in order to sell the LPs they had to have more than 1 or 2 good tracks on them.
Barter is exchanging a service for a service. This is the actual IRS example. A Plumber does some work for a dentist to pay off his dental bill. They have exchanged a service, dental work for plumbing work. The value of the Dental work and the Plumbing work is taxable income.
There is no exchange of services with a radio station. You recieve a service (music) from the station, but you don't provide them with a service. No exchange of services has taken place. If you were providing songs to the radio station as well as recieving them, then it would be an exchange of services.
If you have MP3s in your share directory you are providing a service. When you download MP3s you are recieving a service. You are trading the service of providing MP3s for the service of recieving MP3s. As long as you are providing AND recieving a service via the P2P network it is considered barter and is taxable income. The income is the value of the file(s).
If you remove ALL MP3s from your share directory you are no longer providing a service, you are only recieving a service, and the same situation applies as with the music from a radio station. Since you are no longer trading a service for a service no barter is taking place. Of Course if everyone does this the P2P network becomes worthless.
Right now the IRS is not going after P2P nodes for tax evasion, but it is possible for the RIAA to file a tax evasion complaint against people running a P2P network, or for the IRS to decide to start going after it on their own. Most likely this would involve people with very large numbers of copyrighted songs in the share directory.
So I'll just take it for a joyride while the owner is on vaction or asleep!
A Service is NOT a physical object. So if I hire someone to perform a service, and refuse to pay them, haven't I stolen from them? Guess what, the RIAA labels are selling a service, the distrubition of a copyrighted song. When you take that service without paying for it, you are just as much a thief as an employeer who hires someone to do a job and refuses to pay them when the job is finished. If you can't afford to pay someone for a service don't hire them.
A Kid I grew up with hated rich people with a passion. Said they were all thieves. He took to breaking into upscale homes to "show the theives what it feels like". "Hey they have more than they need". "They have more than their fair share" Haven't seen him since he got shipped off to prison, but most arguments I hear attempting to justify copyright infringement remind me of his attempts to justify his thefts.
Since they are in effect running a server if they pay the same rates as ISPs charge for a hosted web server they'll quit a lot sooner. Earthlink charges 34.95 a month for 20 gig and 10 cents a megabyte. yes that a meg, not a gig price.
If they want server bandwidth they should be paying server prices, not residental prices.
An AC wrote: " Im a starving student. I cant afford 15$ cd's. If I dont download music I dont get music. They arent loosing my business because I dont have the money to give them any business. Im in college all my extra money goes to buy beer and gas for my car."
Oh yer breaking my heart (NOT). "starving" and blowing $$$ on beer? Kid starving people look like those famine pics out of Africa you see on the news. They look like the Jews in the Nazi camps in those pics in your history books. If you are "starving" and buying Beer, then your priorities are fucked.
Oh I want it but can't afford it. ROFLMAO. Music is a damned luxary. You won't die of music starvation. Are you going to claim there are no radio stations in your town where you can get a fix of free music?
Oh I'm a "starving" freelance programer. I want a 1967 427 Cobra roadster but can't afford the $750,000 minium they cost so it's ok if I steal one.
Sound stupid? So does ANY I'm poor so it's ok for me to take it argument.
Next time you sign up for classes, see if they have an ethics class. you need it.
BOYCOTT RIAA labels and you send a message of moral outrage. Boycott means you have NOTHING to do with them. You don't Buy CDs. You don't download Tracks. You don't make tracks availble for download. You don't attent concerts. You don't listen to stations that play RIIA music.
PIRATE music and you send a message of "I'm a deadbeat who's too cheap to pay for entertainment" regardless of how many CDs you claim you buy.
BTW, didn't you listen when your Mama told you two wrongs don't make a right?
Fine, go tell the IRS that you are running a file swapping service, and since you don't consider the files you barter to be income, you don't intend to pay any taxes on them.
If you are unable to reach your peak speeds during peak hours because of demand exceeding availble bandwidth, then removing the hogs from the network will result in increased speeds (up to the ammount on your cap). You will get better service.
"The pirates are not making a profit in the general sense of the word"
I Sugest you look at IRS regulations regarding Barter. If you swap goods and services, those goods and services ARE Taxable income. If a Radio station engages in swapping air time in lieu of royality payments, the value of those payments IS taxable income for the purpose of figuring the stations profits.
The P2P networks are a method of swapping files. These files have a certain economic value. When you place material in your share folder you are providing the service of making files with an economic value availble. When you download files from the P2P you are recieving services from other P2P clients. This IS taxable income as per IRS regulations on Barter. If your costs (Internet fees) are lower than than the value of the files you have recived, you HAVE made a profit.
If you listen to the radio you are recieving a service, but are NOT providing a service to the radio station so no barter (exchange of services) has taken place. If you tape a song off the Radio you still are NOT providing a service to the station so there is no barter.
If you do NOT make the files you have downloaded availble to others then no barter has taken place. If all you do is run a server and don't do any downloads or accept uploads from third parties then there hasn't been the exchange of services that constitutes barter. (Copyright infringement yes, barter no).
Claiming that the value of goods and services exchanged through barter isn't income or proft is a loophole that the IRS closed a long time ago.
" Russia should be commended for trying a cool idea. reusing ICBM's and creating cheap spacecraft seems like a good idea...Too bad"
A Cool idea but not a new idea. The Apollo program's Saturn boosters were NASA's first man rated booster that wasn't a recycled ICBM. All the Mercury and Gemini astronaunts rode ICBMs into space.
using a different definition of a word or phrase than the auhor of a documnet used in order to change the misrepresent the intent of the author. There is NO doubt that the Author of the Second Admendment (Madison) intended "Militia" to mean the general population. There is NO doubt that the people who ratified the admendment understood the context that Madison used the word "Militia"
Let's play your word games with a different admendment. Lets ignore the fact that "speech" was used in the context of communication in the first admendment, and redefine it to suit a political agenda. Lets narrow the definition to only covering ORAL Speech. Guess what you have just lost freedom of "speech" while using your computer.
You have an agenda to disarm the American people. You are willing to ignore the Second admendment or use sophistry to effect a "stealth" revoction of it. WHAT is going to stop someone with an agenda against free speech from following your precedent and doing the same thing to the first admendment?
" Plus if our Government wanted to become tyrannical, do you really think the Bill Of Rites would stop them?"
Launching a revoulation (the reason for the second) just might stop them, depending on which side won the ensuing civil war. NOT having the means to launch a revoulation sure as hell won't stop it.
Ever hear that old slogan "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?. Here's one that is more frightening. "When guns are outlawed only Police will have guns"
Hee Hee, If you think it isn't a profit because no little slips of paper with images of dead Presidents on them changed hands I suggest you read the IRS regulations on barter.
BTW, the tax free part only holds until the RIAA hits apon using the IRS barter regs against the larger file sharers, and starts reporting them for income tax evasion. If the RIAA dosen't go for it there is also the posibility of ratting for rewards since the IRS is willing to pay rewards for finks that turn in tax cheats.
" If this kind of thing becomes wide-spread, you can expect an arms race in the technology. It won't take long for the p2p guys to come up with stuff that is able to dynamically change ports as often as needed. Eventually the ISPs will either have to accept it and work with it or give up."
Not really. The ISP can simply do the same thing they do to people who bypass the bandwidth caps. Pull the plug, ban the user for life. Using P2P can be considered running a server, something that is banned in the TOS. All they have to do is enforce this provision and it won't mater what new tricks you load into your client, because you won't be able to connect to the internet.
" What ever happened to people who started a business because they wanted to provide a service to the community?"
They are providing a service to their community. Cutting off the bandwidth hogs is going to result in faster service, at no extra cost, to the remainder of the people using the service.
P2P is a cool idea, but face it, the vast majority of it's users are just trying to snag copyrighted material without paying for it. They don't give a damn about the Artist, they don't give a damn about other users on the network, they don't give a damn about any negative effects like DRM that may result from their activities.
Nice rant about companies persuing profit. How about the profit the "pirates" are making. Songs that would have cost them thousands of dollars. If they can download $100.00 worth of songs a day or $3000.00 a month that gives them a profit of $2,950.00 after paying the ISP's bill. Tax free. Funny how I don't hear them being blasted for being greedy little shits who only care about making a profit.
Excuse me, There is only reasons to limit what a user can do and that is protect the system or other users files, and limiting the screen res options dosen't fall into either catagory. This is a Lack of a commonly requested feature.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. Hmmm now where have I heard that one? From some company in Redmond?
Didn't I mention writing to the Artists and informing them of the Boycott? Once they start getting letters from their fans they might realize what the RIAA is doing, instead of hearing BS about how the RIAA is protecting them from the "evil music pirates"
In my life I've seen artists involved in every cause from Viet Nam to Pop Ecology to Aids concerts. Don't tell me they have no time for causes. Inform them about the Boycott. Destroying the RIAA is certainly in their intrest. After they are informed of what the RIAA is doing to the fans, along their knowledge of what the RIAA is doing to them, if they still want to kiss RIAA butt, well I have no reason to worry about their fate.
Boycotting the RIAA means more than just not buying CDs. If you download music that is availble on RIAA labels all you are going to do is make yourselves look like a bunch of deadbeats that are too cheap to pay for entertainment. A Boycott involves having NOTHING to do with the RIAA. Don't buy it. Don't download it. Don't make it availble for downloading. Don't attend the concerts.
Write to the bands and tell them you are Boycotting RIAA labels and the reasons WHY, and urge them to sign with a non RIAA label. Leave Boycott messages on bands fan site message boards.
Extend the Boycott. If a company has non-music bussiness Boycott that too. Don't buy that Sony monitor, or TV or PS2. Don't go see that AOL/Time Warner movie. Drop AOL in the unlikely event a slashdotter is using the service. Don't watch AOL/TW stations on TV. If a company hires an artist that is signed to an RIAA label as a ad spokesman, write them and let them know you won't be purchasing their products.
Include the MPAA in the Boycott too.
You have a big advantage. The RIAA and the MPAA deal in a non vital product, entertainment. You won't die of music hunger or movie thirst if you boycott their products. Use it.
Don't worry about the artists being hurt in a boycott either. Are they worried that the RIAA's ploys are going to hurt you? Are they speaking out against copyright extensions and attempts to narrow the scope of fair use? If they aren't, why should you give a shit about them?
"The CBDTPA/DMCA/etc. are the Jim Crow laws of the technological era - designed to segregate society into the priveliged "producer" segment and the powerless "consumer" segment."
ROFLMAO So the inept "consumer" has the right to appoint Diana Moon Glampers as Handicapper General to make sure those evil producers don't take "unfair" advantage of their abilities?
Fool, granting people extra power to overcome lack of talent is a total abuse of the civil rights of the producers that society depends on.
Since you have a problem with men who are able to produce, then do without their products. Make deals with other talentless "consumers" to swap feeble attempts at producing with each other. Create your mindless "ideal" socieity. Lead the other fools into dying of starvation while they learn that hard lesson, you can't consume if no one produces.
So you are saying that the Bill of Rights can be modified through the use of "Newspaek" instead of bothering to take the time to follow the procedures for amending the Constitution? All we have to do is redifne the words instead of changing the Constitution?
WHAT makes you think that this shortcut can be limited to the Second Admendment? If you can repeal the second by redefining the words, what will stop someone else from redefining words in other sections? If the Second can be disposed of so easily, then why not the First? The Fourth? The Fifth?
Once you create this easy method of "amending" the Bill of Rights by "Newspeak" instead of following the procedures established in the Constitution you create a precedent for others to slip in "admendments" by redefinition, some of which you might not approve of.
Do you really think a ban on guns would stop a criminal from aquiring them? Do you really think that it would be any harder to get a gun than to get drugs?
Do you think it's impossible for a government to become tyranical? Didn't the German Republic of the 1920's mutate into a monstrous tyrany in the 1930's? The Second Admendment wasn't ratified because the men who wrote it were sitting up a tyranical government, it was ratified in case the government they were setting up became tyranical at some future date.
So you are ready to give up a freedom because you fear some people abuse it? One more quote.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
"But who wants general adoption of linux anyway ?"
Yeah it would suck if Linux was popular enough that hardware manufactors routinly included Linux drivers with their products, and software venders started ports to Linux.
This belongs on a list of "most reported" X bugs, yet we still get denial that it's a bug. The work around you mentioned just zooms in and out on the desktop, it does NOT change the screen resoulation. I have no idea why some people need to constantly change resolution, but it seems that there are enough people who do it to make this issue crop up over and over.
This is little more than a Bug report, but as usual SOME of the Linux zealots will fly off the handle screaming FUD, and accusing the author of being an idiot, or a M$ lacky, or both.
"That's not a bug, That's a feature"
Remember how much fun we had when MS responded to a bug report with that line? Well in a lot of cases it was the pot calling the kettle black. I See far too many cases where someone pointing out a problem is greated with insults instead of being thanked for filing a bug report.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us"
Pogo (Walt Kelly)
This is often true of the Linux fanatics who chase away new users by making it sound like nobody is intrested in solving issuses. They seem to think that everybody working on free software can quit coding and surf for porn because the software has reached perfection. Thankfully there are people who are working on the code while the hotheads are working on the latest/. flame directed at people who point out areas that need addressing.
Don't try to apply the 21st century definition of Militia to a doccument written in 18th century. In 1789 the Militia consisted of ALL adult male citizens. I Can quote the Second admendment, as well as other things from Revoulantary America.
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine
The main reason the Second Admendment was added to the Constitution wasn't Hunting or Indians, or Invasion. It's the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. The Second exists so that the people will have the means of launching a revoulation to overthrow the government of the United States if it ever becomes a tyrany.
" But perhaps you feel that the founding fathers were authoritarian sons of bitches who didn't want you to think for yourself. Or do you?"
What part of "or follow the procedures for amending it" is too complicated for you to understand? Or do you prefer a non-constitution that lacks any meaning?
" I disagree. A (really) wrong law should not be followed. I'm glad that some jews were kept in hiding and thus escaped the gas chambers during WWII. Do you consider the people who disobeyed the law to help these people to be criminals? Or are they heroes?"
Are you trying to compare risking your life to save the life of another human being to demanding that ENTERTAINMENT be provided to you on your terms regardless of the wishes of the people who created the entertainment?
"Many people I know would gladly pay for fair-priced, full-featured MP3-downloading service or for fair-priced CD's. I don't feel bad at all about keeping the money away from these government-sponsored criminals (RIAA). And many decent people feel the same. They would gladly give money to those who deserve it (the artists), but don't accept being ripped off."
Criminals? And you are going to be the vigilante that decides the RIAA are criminals, and that your kangaroo court entitles you to violate the law? Music is a LUXARY. You aren't going to die from music hunger if you do a legal protest like boycotting CDs sold by RIAA members. Don't bother trying to take the moral highground, you lost that when you violated the law over the price of entertainment. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"Copying software illegally is different however, although I believe it's OK for foreigners, students and others who simply cannot afford the price that companies ask (and thus cannot learn or advance their society). Of course it is different when these groups get cheap deals."
I Want a restored 427 Cobra but can't afford it. Does that make it OK for me to take one? Hell No. So I make do with a Chevy. Ever hear of free software? Can't afford Windows XP? Get Linux. Can't afford MS Office? Then Get Open Office. Can't afford Photo Shop? Then learn to use the Gimp.
"Of course, the US is not exactly a fast learner with the war on drugs either. But copyright infringement can only be stopped with fascist laws. I don't expect the american public to accept these. Although you'll probably accept every law, which begs this quote:"
I Read that before most people on this forum were born, read it when I was speaking out against segration in the southeastern USA at a time when you could get your ass kicked or lynched for doing so. So forget the vain attempt to prove yourself "morally superior" to me. I wasn't afraid to speak out for the people who were having their rights violated back then, and I'm not afraid to speak out for the people who's rights you want to violate with your cockamamie "IP can be taken from those I don't approve of" campaign. I don't limit myself to only speaking out for the rights of groups that are considered "correct" by the left or the right.
"Perhaps I should impress them by buying all their crappy, overpriced CD's. I'll bet the bastards will be thinking about changing their ways when they sniff the line of coke that my money paid for in their favorite brothel. Having all the money in the world will worry them!"
Don't buy the damn CDs if you disaprove of them. Just don't bitch when they write you off as a deadbeat that's too cheap to pay for entertainment because you lacked the conviction to NOT use the product instead of trying to grab it without paying for it. Boycott the Music and you send a message of Moral outrage. Steal the music and you lose the moral standing you claim you want.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand since they called the 45s "singles" it could be argued that only the "A" side had value, and the "B" side was just filler. In this case a precedent was set by the Labels of valuing a good track at twice the average track value, so that $15 dollar CD with 15 tracks would have a value of $2 for a "single" quality track off it.
The Labels HAVE used a per track sales model in the past. It worked out good for the fans on two levels. If there was only 1 good song on an LP you could just buy the 45. This ment that in order to sell the LPs they had to have more than 1 or 2 good tracks on them.
There is no exchange of services with a radio station. You recieve a service (music) from the station, but you don't provide them with a service. No exchange of services has taken place. If you were providing songs to the radio station as well as recieving them, then it would be an exchange of services.
If you have MP3s in your share directory you are providing a service. When you download MP3s you are recieving a service. You are trading the service of providing MP3s for the service of recieving MP3s. As long as you are providing AND recieving a service via the P2P network it is considered barter and is taxable income. The income is the value of the file(s).
If you remove ALL MP3s from your share directory you are no longer providing a service, you are only recieving a service, and the same situation applies as with the music from a radio station. Since you are no longer trading a service for a service no barter is taking place. Of Course if everyone does this the P2P network becomes worthless.
Right now the IRS is not going after P2P nodes for tax evasion, but it is possible for the RIAA to file a tax evasion complaint against people running a P2P network, or for the IRS to decide to start going after it on their own. Most likely this would involve people with very large numbers of copyrighted songs in the share directory.
A Service is NOT a physical object. So if I hire someone to perform a service, and refuse to pay them, haven't I stolen from them? Guess what, the RIAA labels are selling a service, the distrubition of a copyrighted song. When you take that service without paying for it, you are just as much a thief as an employeer who hires someone to do a job and refuses to pay them when the job is finished. If you can't afford to pay someone for a service don't hire them.
A Kid I grew up with hated rich people with a passion. Said they were all thieves. He took to breaking into upscale homes to "show the theives what it feels like". "Hey they have more than they need". "They have more than their fair share" Haven't seen him since he got shipped off to prison, but most arguments I hear attempting to justify copyright infringement remind me of his attempts to justify his thefts.
If they want server bandwidth they should be paying server prices, not residental prices.
" Im a starving student. I cant afford 15$ cd's. If I dont download music I dont get music. They arent loosing my business because I dont have the money to give them any business. Im in college all my extra money goes to buy beer and gas for my car."
Oh yer breaking my heart (NOT). "starving" and blowing $$$ on beer? Kid starving people look like those famine pics out of Africa you see on the news. They look like the Jews in the Nazi camps in those pics in your history books. If you are "starving" and buying Beer, then your priorities are fucked.
Oh I want it but can't afford it. ROFLMAO. Music is a damned luxary. You won't die of music starvation. Are you going to claim there are no radio stations in your town where you can get a fix of free music?
Oh I'm a "starving" freelance programer. I want a 1967 427 Cobra roadster but can't afford the $750,000 minium they cost so it's ok if I steal one.
Sound stupid? So does ANY I'm poor so it's ok for me to take it argument.
Next time you sign up for classes, see if they have an ethics class. you need it.
PIRATE music and you send a message of "I'm a deadbeat who's too cheap to pay for entertainment" regardless of how many CDs you claim you buy.
BTW, didn't you listen when your Mama told you two wrongs don't make a right?
Let us know how it turns out.
I Sugest you look at IRS regulations regarding Barter. If you swap goods and services, those goods and services ARE Taxable income. If a Radio station engages in swapping air time in lieu of royality payments, the value of those payments IS taxable income for the purpose of figuring the stations profits.
The P2P networks are a method of swapping files. These files have a certain economic value. When you place material in your share folder you are providing the service of making files with an economic value availble. When you download files from the P2P you are recieving services from other P2P clients. This IS taxable income as per IRS regulations on Barter. If your costs (Internet fees) are lower than than the value of the files you have recived, you HAVE made a profit.
If you listen to the radio you are recieving a service, but are NOT providing a service to the radio station so no barter (exchange of services) has taken place. If you tape a song off the Radio you still are NOT providing a service to the station so there is no barter.
If you do NOT make the files you have downloaded availble to others then no barter has taken place. If all you do is run a server and don't do any downloads or accept uploads from third parties then there hasn't been the exchange of services that constitutes barter. (Copyright infringement yes, barter no).
Claiming that the value of goods and services exchanged through barter isn't income or proft is a loophole that the IRS closed a long time ago.
A Cool idea but not a new idea. The Apollo program's Saturn boosters were NASA's first man rated booster that wasn't a recycled ICBM. All the Mercury and Gemini astronaunts rode ICBMs into space.
http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=8860 59&pic=none&TP=getarticle
" Also please define the word "redifne" "
using a different definition of a word or phrase than the auhor of a documnet used in order to change the misrepresent the intent of the author. There is NO doubt that the Author of the Second Admendment (Madison) intended "Militia" to mean the general population. There is NO doubt that the people who ratified the admendment understood the context that Madison used the word "Militia"
Let's play your word games with a different admendment. Lets ignore the fact that "speech" was used in the context of communication in the first admendment, and redefine it to suit a political agenda. Lets narrow the definition to only covering ORAL Speech. Guess what you have just lost freedom of "speech" while using your computer.
You have an agenda to disarm the American people. You are willing to ignore the Second admendment or use sophistry to effect a "stealth" revoction of it. WHAT is going to stop someone with an agenda against free speech from following your precedent and doing the same thing to the first admendment?
" Plus if our Government wanted to become tyrannical, do you really think the Bill Of Rites would stop them?"
Launching a revoulation (the reason for the second) just might stop them, depending on which side won the ensuing civil war. NOT having the means to launch a revoulation sure as hell won't stop it.
Ever hear that old slogan "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?. Here's one that is more frightening. "When guns are outlawed only Police will have guns"
If you think it isn't a profit because no little slips of paper with images of dead Presidents on them changed hands I suggest you read the IRS regulations on barter.
BTW, the tax free part only holds until the RIAA hits apon using the IRS barter regs against the larger file sharers, and starts reporting them for income tax evasion. If the RIAA dosen't go for it there is also the posibility of ratting for rewards since the IRS is willing to pay rewards for finks that turn in tax cheats.
Not really. The ISP can simply do the same thing they do to people who bypass the bandwidth caps. Pull the plug, ban the user for life. Using P2P can be considered running a server, something that is banned in the TOS. All they have to do is enforce this provision and it won't mater what new tricks you load into your client, because you won't be able to connect to the internet.
They are providing a service to their community. Cutting off the bandwidth hogs is going to result in faster service, at no extra cost, to the remainder of the people using the service.
P2P is a cool idea, but face it, the vast majority of it's users are just trying to snag copyrighted material without paying for it. They don't give a damn about the Artist, they don't give a damn about other users on the network, they don't give a damn about any negative effects like DRM that may result from their activities.
Nice rant about companies persuing profit. How about the profit the "pirates" are making. Songs that would have cost them thousands of dollars. If they can download $100.00 worth of songs a day or $3000.00 a month that gives them a profit of $2,950.00 after paying the ISP's bill. Tax free. Funny how I don't hear them being blasted for being greedy little shits who only care about making a profit.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. Hmmm now where have I heard that one? From some company in Redmond?
In my life I've seen artists involved in every cause from Viet Nam to Pop Ecology to Aids concerts. Don't tell me they have no time for causes. Inform them about the Boycott. Destroying the RIAA is certainly in their intrest. After they are informed of what the RIAA is doing to the fans, along their knowledge of what the RIAA is doing to them, if they still want to kiss RIAA butt, well I have no reason to worry about their fate.
Write to the bands and tell them you are Boycotting RIAA labels and the reasons WHY, and urge them to sign with a non RIAA label. Leave Boycott messages on bands fan site message boards.
Extend the Boycott. If a company has non-music bussiness Boycott that too. Don't buy that Sony monitor, or TV or PS2. Don't go see that AOL/Time Warner movie. Drop AOL in the unlikely event a slashdotter is using the service. Don't watch AOL/TW stations on TV. If a company hires an artist that is signed to an RIAA label as a ad spokesman, write them and let them know you won't be purchasing their products.
Include the MPAA in the Boycott too.
You have a big advantage. The RIAA and the MPAA deal in a non vital product, entertainment. You won't die of music hunger or movie thirst if you boycott their products. Use it.
Don't worry about the artists being hurt in a boycott either. Are they worried that the RIAA's ploys are going to hurt you? Are they speaking out against copyright extensions and attempts to narrow the scope of fair use? If they aren't, why should you give a shit about them?
ROFLMAO
So the inept "consumer" has the right to appoint Diana Moon Glampers as Handicapper General to make sure those evil producers don't take "unfair" advantage of their abilities?
Fool, granting people extra power to overcome lack of talent is a total abuse of the civil rights of the producers that society depends on.
Since you have a problem with men who are able to produce, then do without their products. Make deals with other talentless "consumers" to swap feeble attempts at producing with each other. Create your mindless "ideal" socieity. Lead the other fools into dying of starvation while they learn that hard lesson, you can't consume if no one produces.
WHAT makes you think that this shortcut can be limited to the Second Admendment? If you can repeal the second by redefining the words, what will stop someone else from redefining words in other sections? If the Second can be disposed of so easily, then why not the First? The Fourth? The Fifth?
Once you create this easy method of "amending" the Bill of Rights by "Newspeak" instead of following the procedures established in the Constitution you create a precedent for others to slip in "admendments" by redefinition, some of which you might not approve of.
Do you really think a ban on guns would stop a criminal from aquiring them? Do you really think that it would be any harder to get a gun than to get drugs?
Do you think it's impossible for a government to become tyranical? Didn't the German Republic of the 1920's mutate into a monstrous tyrany in the 1930's? The Second Admendment wasn't ratified because the men who wrote it were sitting up a tyranical government, it was ratified in case the government they were setting up became tyranical at some future date.
So you are ready to give up a freedom because you fear some people abuse it? One more quote.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
Yeah it would suck if Linux was popular enough that hardware manufactors routinly included Linux drivers with their products, and software venders started ports to Linux.
"That's not a bug, That's a feature"
Remember how much fun we had when MS responded to a bug report with that line? Well in a lot of cases it was the pot calling the kettle black. I See far too many cases where someone pointing out a problem is greated with insults instead of being thanked for filing a bug report.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us" /. flame directed at people who point out areas that need addressing.
Pogo (Walt Kelly)
This is often true of the Linux fanatics who chase away new users by making it sound like nobody is intrested in solving issuses. They seem to think that everybody working on free software can quit coding and surf for porn because the software has reached perfection. Thankfully there are people who are working on the code while the hotheads are working on the latest
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine
The main reason the Second Admendment was added to the Constitution wasn't Hunting or Indians, or Invasion. It's the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. The Second exists so that the people will have the means of launching a revoulation to overthrow the government of the United States if it ever becomes a tyrany.
What part of "or follow the procedures for amending it" is too complicated for you to understand? Or do you prefer a non-constitution that lacks any meaning?
" I disagree. A (really) wrong law should not be followed. I'm glad that some jews were kept in hiding and thus escaped the gas chambers during WWII. Do you consider the people who disobeyed the law to help these people to be criminals? Or are they heroes?"
Are you trying to compare risking your life to save the life of another human being to demanding that ENTERTAINMENT be provided to you on your terms regardless of the wishes of the people who created the entertainment?
"Many people I know would gladly pay for fair-priced, full-featured MP3-downloading service or for fair-priced CD's. I don't feel bad at all about keeping the money away from these government-sponsored criminals (RIAA). And many decent people feel the same. They would gladly give money to those who deserve it (the artists), but don't accept being ripped off."
Criminals? And you are going to be the vigilante that decides the RIAA are criminals, and that your kangaroo court entitles you to violate the law? Music is a LUXARY. You aren't going to die from music hunger if you do a legal protest like boycotting CDs sold by RIAA members. Don't bother trying to take the moral highground, you lost that when you violated the law over the price of entertainment. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"Copying software illegally is different however, although I believe it's OK for foreigners, students and others who simply cannot afford the price that companies ask (and thus cannot learn or advance their society). Of course it is different when these groups get cheap deals."
I Want a restored 427 Cobra but can't afford it. Does that make it OK for me to take one? Hell No. So I make do with a Chevy. Ever hear of free software? Can't afford Windows XP? Get Linux. Can't afford MS Office? Then Get Open Office. Can't afford Photo Shop? Then learn to use the Gimp.
"Of course, the US is not exactly a fast learner with the war on drugs either. But copyright infringement can only be stopped with fascist laws. I don't expect the american public to accept these. Although you'll probably accept every law, which begs this quote:"
I Read that before most people on this forum were born, read it when I was speaking out against segration in the southeastern USA at a time when you could get your ass kicked or lynched for doing so. So forget the vain attempt to prove yourself "morally superior" to me. I wasn't afraid to speak out for the people who were having their rights violated back then, and I'm not afraid to speak out for the people who's rights you want to violate with your cockamamie "IP can be taken from those I don't approve of" campaign. I don't limit myself to only speaking out for the rights of groups that are considered "correct" by the left or the right.
"Perhaps I should impress them by buying all their crappy, overpriced CD's. I'll bet the bastards will be thinking about changing their ways when they sniff the line of coke that my money paid for in their favorite brothel. Having all the money in the world will worry them!"
Don't buy the damn CDs if you disaprove of them. Just don't bitch when they write you off as a deadbeat that's too cheap to pay for entertainment because you lacked the conviction to NOT use the product instead of trying to grab it without paying for it. Boycott the Music and you send a message of Moral outrage. Steal the music and you lose the moral standing you claim you want.