I, too had the "Moron in LoTR" experience - the guy kept playing with his phone (checking for messages, for chrissake). Since he had one of those ultra-bright blue screen Nokia 8000 series phone, it was not only beeping away, but light enough to be irritating. Worse, after I had to tell him for the second time to quit fucking with his phone he had the cheek to act puzzled and hurt about it.
Some people shouldn't allowed out in public. At least he stopped after the second time, cause I'm sure he wouldn't have enjoyed watching his tiny little phone sailing over the balcony...
Nothing, as such (although various US government agencies were fairly enthusiastic about them a few years back). But disliking an organisation because they have a bad track record is one thing. Disliking an organisation and then attributing everything bad that happens in the world to them is just nonsense.
If you're the kind of person prepared to spend two months' salary on an engagement ring, you could probably fly to Australia, see them being pulled out of the mines, take a holiday in Melbourne or Syndey while you get one fashioned into a custom-designed ring, and fly home, all without blowing the budget.
(Honestly, does anyone really do that two months salary nonsene?! It would have meant my ring cost as much as the wedding!)
Why yes, those mean old African positively forced slaves on the good ol' boys of the South. They wanted to stop, see, they never even wanted to start, but just like our fat friend suing the fast food industry, they were helpless!
That would be the government allowing the market to decide what licenses are worth. The market fucked up. How is this the government's fault? You want they should start making arbitary decisions about what things are worth? Then you'd be whining about "statism" and "socialism".
Of course, massive theft from shareholders is all the fault of the government for investigating it. Why didn't I realise it before? And here I was, thinking it was the greed of rich wankers stealing from their employers!
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the tax take if company tax rates were halved, but companies were required to present the same accounts to the IRS as they do to investors.
I doubt SonicBlue have given huge amounts of money and loaned their corporate jets to the President and Vice-President of the United States, so it seems unlikely that ivestigative bodies will have any incentive to drag the chain on them.
I believe even employees have moral rights, a much neglected area of copyright law (and, to be honest, I'm not actually sure it's part of US law and jurisprudence; it certainly is in most Commonwealth countries).
Moral rights (in a copyright sense) persist even if you sign over copyright or do work for hire. One of the key provisions is that your work may not be used in a context which is defamatory - for example, the song you wrote can't have rights onsold to a neo-Nazi group if you consider that defamatory use of your material, even though you've signed away ownership to someone else.
Australia is trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US (you know, that country which is so fond of free trade that it erects massive tarrif and subsidy barriers to all and sundry). I imagine implementation of all so-called intellectual property laws that are in the US but not yet in Australia will be one of the first requirements for such an arrangement, and I imagine the Howard government will bend over so quick that half the country will get whiplash.
Multi gigabyte DBs are common. The LA Times may be a Fortune 500 company, but I doubt that it has the requiremetn (like, say, the bank I contract to) to keep all its transactions around online for a year. The part of that I look after - and have indexed up the wazoo for MI purposes - only covers their least used channel, and is much bigger than you're used to dealing with.
It already happens. All US telcos and ISPs refuse to peer with non-US providers, arguing only US traffic has any value. Non-US providers already get reamed in exactly the way you describe.
What you've seen of India on TV is mostly bullshit, I suspect.
India and China have similar large populations and similar profiles - a lot of poor, backward people (especially in rural areas) and a lot of affluent people (especially in the big cities). There's a lot of money to be made in India.
You probably have a more favourable impression of China because the government of India hasn't been as friendly to tycoons like Murdoch.
It's not an argument for never passing any laws - it's an argument for passing well thought out, well written laws which don't leave absurd room for interpretation; you'll notice that in the US, for example, the easiest way to get a law which is constitutionally questionable shot down is for it to be considered "overly broad".
In the case of the DMCA, the subversion of due process which allows sanctions to be effected simply as the result of an accusing party claiming harm is a perfect example.
In a tolerably responsible legislature, of course, lawmakers would make sure their laws were framed so as to have the effect desired without causing unnecessary problems. But since the DMCA is basically lobby-driven law, the fact that it's over broad and overreaching is probably the intention of a bought-and-paid-for legislature.
The DMCA allows immediate sanctions (the take down provisions), regardless of the findings of any puny court of law. It also has such massive penalties that it is unlikely that many people will want to even risk being the next Dimitri.
This is what legal types refer to as a chilling effect; many laws are deliberately written this way in order to promote self-censorship.
What would happen if we allow everyone to be prosecuted? I bet that when the count comes to 150 person prosecuted, it will be over forever.
The US have imprisioned literally millions of people in the "drug war", many of whom have committed the sin of smoking dried plant leaves because they like the way it makes them feel 20 IQ points dumber. The fact that this has not retarded drug use and has made drug barons fantastically rich hasn't altered the determination of the US government to put people in jail (and a whole bunch more).
The idea that jailing a few hundred people for DMCA violations would make lawmakers think twice is fanciful.
Companies actually exist to fulfill their charter. Which may or may not make profit maximisation their primary goal (non-profits don't, for example).
Since the charter is granted soley at the discretion of society (as represented through government agencies), corporations ought to be careful about what they do...
Slashdot Mirror
Take the cellphone off her.
Seriously.
I, too had the "Moron in LoTR" experience - the guy kept playing with his phone (checking for messages, for chrissake). Since he had one of those ultra-bright blue screen Nokia 8000 series phone, it was not only beeping away, but light enough to be irritating. Worse, after I had to tell him for the second time to quit fucking with his phone he had the cheek to act puzzled and hurt about it.
Some people shouldn't allowed out in public. At least he stopped after the second time, cause I'm sure he wouldn't have enjoyed watching his tiny little phone sailing over the balcony...
Nothing, as such (although various US government agencies were fairly enthusiastic about them a few years back). But disliking an organisation because they have a bad track record is one thing. Disliking an organisation and then attributing everything bad that happens in the world to them is just nonsense.
If you're the kind of person prepared to spend two months' salary on an engagement ring, you could probably fly to Australia, see them being pulled out of the mines, take a holiday in Melbourne or Syndey while you get one fashioned into a custom-designed ring, and fly home, all without blowing the budget.
(Honestly, does anyone really do that two months salary nonsene?! It would have meant my ring cost as much as the wedding!)
Why yes, those mean old African positively forced slaves on the good ol' boys of the South. They wanted to stop, see, they never even wanted to start, but just like our fat friend suing the fast food industry, they were helpless!
I know it's fashionable to dislike the Taliban, but do you think you could manage facts instead of doublethink?
The only opium that came out of Afganistan during Taliban rule was from that of the (current US allies) forces who opposed them.
He's still got his nightclub.
Oh, yeah, you da man. Steal that movie! Justify everything the MPAA say about people! Rip off the people who made it! I worship you like a god!
So do you oppose the death penalty unilaterally, or do you like it when it's poor black folks and only dislike it when it's the wealthy aristocracy?
That would be the government allowing the market to decide what licenses are worth. The market fucked up. How is this the government's fault? You want they should start making arbitary decisions about what things are worth? Then you'd be whining about "statism" and "socialism".
Of course, massive theft from shareholders is all the fault of the government for investigating it. Why didn't I realise it before? And here I was, thinking it was the greed of rich wankers stealing from their employers!
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the tax take if company tax rates were halved, but companies were required to present the same accounts to the IRS as they do to investors.
I doubt SonicBlue have given huge amounts of money and loaned their corporate jets to the President and Vice-President of the United States, so it seems unlikely that ivestigative bodies will have any incentive to drag the chain on them.
Now that's just downright deceptive.
Poor comparison. The painter of the Mona Lisa is long dead, and and moral rights went with him. Pick something a little newer.
I believe even employees have moral rights, a much neglected area of copyright law (and, to be honest, I'm not actually sure it's part of US law and jurisprudence; it certainly is in most Commonwealth countries).
Moral rights (in a copyright sense) persist even if you sign over copyright or do work for hire. One of the key provisions is that your work may not be used in a context which is defamatory - for example, the song you wrote can't have rights onsold to a neo-Nazi group if you consider that defamatory use of your material, even though you've signed away ownership to someone else.
Australia is trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US (you know, that country which is so fond of free trade that it erects massive tarrif and subsidy barriers to all and sundry). I imagine implementation of all so-called intellectual property laws that are in the US but not yet in Australia will be one of the first requirements for such an arrangement, and I imagine the Howard government will bend over so quick that half the country will get whiplash.
Multi gigabyte DBs are common. The LA Times may be a Fortune 500 company, but I doubt that it has the requiremetn (like, say, the bank I contract to) to keep all its transactions around online for a year. The part of that I look after - and have indexed up the wazoo for MI purposes - only covers their least used channel, and is much bigger than you're used to dealing with.
I'm guessing the ladies from Ericsson don't swallow.
No businesses would accept the removal of any number of laws, the most obvious ones being bankruptcy and incorporation laws.
It already happens. All US telcos and ISPs refuse to peer with non-US providers, arguing only US traffic has any value. Non-US providers already get reamed in exactly the way you describe.
What you've seen of India on TV is mostly bullshit, I suspect.
India and China have similar large populations and similar profiles - a lot of poor, backward people (especially in rural areas) and a lot of affluent people (especially in the big cities). There's a lot of money to be made in India.
You probably have a more favourable impression of China because the government of India hasn't been as friendly to tycoons like Murdoch.
It's not an argument for never passing any laws - it's an argument for passing well thought out, well written laws which don't leave absurd room for interpretation; you'll notice that in the US, for example, the easiest way to get a law which is constitutionally questionable shot down is for it to be considered "overly broad".
In the case of the DMCA, the subversion of due process which allows sanctions to be effected simply as the result of an accusing party claiming harm is a perfect example.
In a tolerably responsible legislature, of course, lawmakers would make sure their laws were framed so as to have the effect desired without causing unnecessary problems. But since the DMCA is basically lobby-driven law, the fact that it's over broad and overreaching is probably the intention of a bought-and-paid-for legislature.
The DMCA allows immediate sanctions (the take down provisions), regardless of the findings of any puny court of law. It also has such massive penalties that it is unlikely that many people will want to even risk being the next Dimitri.
This is what legal types refer to as a chilling effect; many laws are deliberately written this way in order to promote self-censorship.
The idea that jailing a few hundred people for DMCA violations would make lawmakers think twice is fanciful.
Companies actually exist to fulfill their charter. Which may or may not make profit maximisation their primary goal (non-profits don't, for example).
Since the charter is granted soley at the discretion of society (as represented through government agencies), corporations ought to be careful about what they do...