The DMA has parallel do-not-mail and do-not-call lists. As noted elesewhere, you may sign on free by mail. Why it is $5 over the net, I can't imagine. It must cost $ to process all that mail. Perhaps they want to discourage people.
Your name is purged after 5 years I believe.
There is also a free service run by the (3?) credit reporting services that will prevent any credit-card solicitations from being sent to you. I suppose it puts a flag on your credit report. You probably know that solicitations can be stolen and filled out fraudulently by a 3rd party. This is a good thing, and can be done over the phone with an automated system.
Back to the DMA -- I don't think they're evil, exactly, but don't think they set up the don't bother me lists out of public-mindedness. Like the movie industry with its self-imposed ratings, I believe they set it up to try to head off federal regulation. Better to self-regulate they figured, and benefit from the fact most people will never sign up.
You're right on your first point, commercial speech is "speech" and protected, though less so than other categories of speech.
However
However, free speech is PRECISELY why the government has difficulty regulating how your mailbox can be used, and it is largely why you get so much junk mail. It is also why most anti-spam legislation is pretty meek, because forced speech and undue limitations can well invalidate these laws....is not correct. Commercial speech is "the lowest form of life" in free speech and relatively easy to regulate, and is quite regulated as it is. The reason the gov't has had "difficulty" has been lack of public interest (it's taken a while) and industry lobbying. The laws are in their infancy, and the FCCC proposal is completely novel on the federal level. give it time, and your support. (Much of the state anti-spam problems have to do with getting their hands on the perpetrators; I chatted with the Washington AAG involved in one of the first cases, who said they had to hire 3 private PI's for help finding the spammer! He was setting up fake corporations, moving every week, etc.)
Free speech is an issue here, but not a dominant one. An outright ban on commercial solicitations would be an outrage, but asking people their preferences is not. If you tell the marketers to leave your door, they have to go; and if you simply mount a "No Solictors" sign that should be the end of the matter for door-to-door brush salesmen. Same here.
Yes, Virginia, phosphors do wear out over time. The problem used to be much, much worse.
I hate screensavers that run more than ten minutes -- they rarely seem clever any more, and more importantly they seduce a lot of people into thinking they are somehow saving energy. In fact, if the tube is fired up the box is consuming nearly full power and releasing nearly full heat.
MUCH better is any kind of sleep mode, which might reduce a 75-watt load to 5 watts. Or... turn the darn monitor off for a power consumption of maybe 2 watts (off doesn't quite mean off). A friend and I went to ridiculous lengths during the California energy crisis to persuade his tech company IT dept. to tell everyone to turn off their 3,000 machines when not in use, or at least overnight, or AT LEAST over the weekends and holidays.
They told workers to leave them on because of the old tale that electronics last longer that way. More research, I eventually reached a very friendly engineer with the Sony monitors operations. In short, the leave-'em-on philosophy made some sense before all solid-state surface-mount design prevailed because of thermal shock and "creep," which made IC's rise in their sockets. Now everything is soldered and the components are many times more reliable. In terms of monitor wear, it's probably a toss-up. No one would seriously leave their TV on 24 hours a day to save money, right? And even if wear were accelerated somehow with the machines on 1/3 as long, the amount of energy consumed would have bought a ton of hardware.
We calculated the excess electrical in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that's before factoring in the added load of the air conditioning to remove the waste heat (most of the energy used goes to waste heat). (A rough guess: the best estimate I could find suggested it takes 1 watt of A/C consumption to remove 3-4 watts of heat.) There was also a citizenship issue to energy conservation at the time, as there were rolling blackouts to ration energy the closer the system came to overload. (You all remember the stories.)
Um, anyway, I hope I made a point. Er, my point. One thing Apple did right was to support Energy Star early on. "By design," MS Windows NT 4.0, which his company uses, does not support power mgmt even though the newer monitors typically do. Yes... they could upgrade the O/S... but what they have works. There are cheap utilities that persuade NT to play along, but that would require getting the IT people to install it, and if they were unwilling to listen about turning monitors off, well.... you get it.
I think they did start telling employees to turn the monitors off just recently, maybe 18 months after our email campaign and a half-million in electricity. Could the computers be next? They're just dumb workstations and don't do anything in the off hours.
Last nail in the coffin: To give you a sense of his IT department, they sent a tech down once who could not be made to understand, by several engineers, the difference between a SCSI and a parallel port ("Well, it should fit."). No shit.:)
stealing still has cost. Most notable is time cost -- it takes time to locate and download a song you want.
Hmm. Another interesting point.
Now, for accounting purposes, what dollar value do we put on that time? How much does your average computer-literate thief charge per hour anyway? Do you have to withhold taxes?
You are partly right that they will "compete with piracy on a price level" when the cost of the disk is less than the "cost" of the other methods. However, people often value their own time very cheaply; and, technically, stealing is against the law, so merchants shouldn't have to out-compete it. I know you're speaking in practical terms, not legal. I'd like to see how much online custom disk-ordering would costs (the quality would be higher), esp. for legacy stuff with a current promotional budget of $0.00.
Also, is there a Netflix for music CD's? (Besides my local public library, which has a surprising variety of stuff. Support your libraries!)
I doubt there are many musicians wild about the labels, but I had to talk to one before I realized they liked Napster far less. Napster just seemed like a good deal to the rest of use because, well, it was fun and cheap. Napster's gone, piracy's growing. (I laughed at the RIAA effort to spoof P2P transfers with bogus files -- fire with fire?)
I can think of few contexts where monopoly is good, other than small-town hospitals, the water department, stuff like that. Don;t get me started on thos diamond fiends; I only figured it out after buying an engagement ring. (That plus the blood diamond thing.)
If lawyers were almost universally ethical people, the jokes wouldn't be funny.
Quick, name a group of universally ethical people!
I hope you didn't say "priest."
Let alone "software engineer." (eek!)
The jokes are pretty harmless, but I think lawyers are just the contemporary group to target. Not that many years ago it was doctors (think "golf" and "take two aspirin") -- why aren't doctors funny now? Most of the racist and ethnic jokes are taboo now. Sexist, even blonde jokes, too. I know of plenty of engineer jokes, but most people don't think of engineers as funny. Funny-strange, yes; funny-haha, no. What do engineers do anyway? The jokes there are all about how they prefer talking frogs to dates. (My best friend is one, honest. An engineer, not a frog.)
The lawyer jokes are fine; I just reserve the right to retaliate with deadly wit... Stupid hateful stereotypes, well that's ignorance more than humor, and reflects badly on the teller. There's a sort of mind that sees intricate conspiracies everywhere that makes me wary.
The +1 observation is a good one, but who the hell skims at less than +3?:)
Any good? "Making of". (Same as DVD "bonus disk."?)
At one point, TRON was state-of-the-art
Oh yes. Unfortunately, that point was several years before Tron was made.;-)
I did like the visual integration of humans and computer images, not just as something novel for its time but also for its ethereal quality. Plus Tron (TRace ON -- was that BASIC?) gave everyong such a fine introduction to computer architecture!
On most of your Q's I have no idea, but I know others have put a lot of thought into them. Every wreck is case-by-case, esp. since the problem is so new, all these ancient wrecks being accessible suddenly.
how many people are still getting things in the titanic? i think that there are rightful owners, but those owners can't really go down there for themselves.
I don't knnow, I'd forgotten about it. But if "getting things" is stealing, it's still stealing if they're old and on the ocean floor.
i think this is more in terms of finding a $100 bill on the street, dated from 1950. with no claims on record since then.
Sure. But most wrecks are not like that, even ones 500 years old. If a ship sinks with $200 million in gold, the owners remember it.
Jurors are just one of many checks upon the government.
Yep. But not this way. Kind of weird that of the checks and balances, just nullification would be a secret, huh? Sometimes you have to break the rules to do the right thing, but if you nullify you're still breaking the rules; it's not your right. As the rules are now, if you believe in nullification you have no place on a jury -- or on the bench for that matter.
I would say that it is one of the unenumerated rights of the people.
That's kind of a good one, but such a right has never been recognized. Quite the opposite, our courts routinely condemn it.
"the KKK marching in Skokie" is basically understood as valid free speech caselaw. This has nothing to do with the subversion to our judicial system posed by jurors feeling free to ignore the laws and the evidence.
I have no idea whether it should be a right, just that it does not exist right now. Many people say it does, but then it's a right you can never admit to using if you want to be a juror -- you have to lie to use it. Sounds fishy, doesn't it.
There is a reluctance to intrude on jury room proceedings or to subject jurors to the fear of prosecution. This goes to the fair trial right. There are exceptions for extremes like jury tampering, the intrusion of outside influences such as bribery. The truth is, most jurors do their jobs.
I quoted a case here somewhere affirming that a juror should be dismissed per court rules if he or she intends nullification. It is hard to see how exercising one's right is grounds for dismissal, isn't it?
We adopted the basic British framework but dropped plenty of it. I don't know details on how or when, just what we've been doing for 200 years.
Actually, according to our founding fathers, Jury Nullificaiton was and is a right. This can easily be seen by looking at statements by Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
Nonsense on the law and the history. Cites? And even if you could find a "statement" remember it is an opinion, not the law. If you want to know what the law says, read the law. Jury nullification is on page ??.
Did the jury nullifications of Peter Zenger and William Penn just not happen?
They happened, and that does not mean nullification is not a right. The other day someone was shot in court; this did not mean shooting in court is a right.
History: Note that the Zenger trial was in 1735. The Penn trial in 1670. The American Revolution began in 1776. This is 2002. Aren't your examples a little dusty, as they considerably predate both the Constitution and the United States?
It is true that the most recent applications of jury nullification -- the acquittal of white's for crimes against blacks -- have been regrettable. But that is not a problem with jury nullification, but rather with jury selection.
Nullification was regrettable. Jurors who followed the law would have gotten these cases right.
Besides, the benefits jury nullification can provide far outweigh its drawbacks, in that it allows ordinary people to prevent the government from forcing draconian laws on any individual citizen. Fugutive slave laws were wrong, and were rightfully disregarded by juries. Likewise with laws during prohibition. And defamation laws to which the "truth was no defense".
These supposed benefits are all well and good. NONE of it shows that nullification is a right, just that "it happens."
Mistaken on spelling? Well yes, and what does that make you? A spelling nazi, a specific kind of slashdot low life.
Well, you did do better on it this time.
There is one point here: Nullification is not a right. If you think it is, show me WHERE it says so. You can't, because... it is not a right.
Don't read too much into the one case I cited -- it just had the sort of discussion I needed. The thing to look for is whether this case is representative of the others, and most importantly what the Supreme Court had to say in the cases cited (all Supreme Ct decsions are available at Cornell LIIR and elsewhere). So the only thing I wanted to get right was the law as it now stands.
The Thomas case the defense attorney did not defend nullification because it would have been borderline malpractice to do so. Instead the defense focused on whether the juror had been caught legitimately. If jury nullification were acceptable, there would be no need to address how the juror was caught. The court decided to restate (not change) the law concerning nullification all the same, with the intent of making clear that dismissing jurors for threatening nullifciation is valid, even compelled; just not this juror. This statement is not dicta, it is binding law for the courts of the Second Circuit (I worked for the Seventh Circuit). This juror did not get off on "other grounds," rather he was likely guilty but there was a flaw in the proof that endangered jury privacy. This is like a drug dealer getting off because he was caught in an illegal search. He's still a criminal, but other principles of justice have to be honored as well. Drug dealing is still just as illegal as before.
Their denunciation could not have been clearer (this is hot language for a court, you see):
We take this occasion to restate some basic principles regarding the character of our jury system. Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror's oath to apply the law as instructed by the court--in the words of the standard oath administered to jurors in the federal courts, to "render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence." Federal Judicial Center, Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges 225 (4th ed. 1996) (emphasis supplied). We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.
And for other questions of con law, there is plenty written on them. And that's just it -- nothing in favor of jury nullification is anywhere in the case law, except to recognize that it happens sometimes and should be prevented whenever possible.
I state all this because I do want to see that this is correct state of the law, stated many times and many places. If you can show me a holding that goes the other way, please do. I glanced at the handful of cases cited by the FIJA and the like, and they were not at all supportive.
PBS/Frontline has extensive data on this project -- a FAQ that talks about Judge Ted Poe a bit, and similar tapings to date.
This is a good example of the First Amendment running into fair trial concerns.
The only completely safe way to do it would be to tape it without telling any of the jurors.
But that might raise certain privacy issues, plus it would just pollute every single jury deliberation that follows! ([whisper]Hey... where do you think they hid the camera?)
I'm 90% they were going to ask consent at voir dire. Only 14 of 110 refused. Funny, the prosecution's objection: "Allowing a camera in the jury room during capital murder deliberations would violate Texas law by creating new reasons to disqualify potential jurors, Harris County prosecutors are arguing." However, "a lawyer for state District Judge Ted Poe, who approved the videotaping for a documentary, said Wednesday that the new argument to ban the camera was raised too late." Note that the judge has a lawyer!
I agree that the prosecution's standing is a little hard to figure, though I would really want their agreement to videotaping. They appear to be positioning themselves as defending the jurors, although 9 out of 20 jurors said no problem. At bottom, they must feel that the cameras will decrease likelihood of a death sentence -- now why it would is an interesting question. If death is chosen or not, we know how everyone voted anyway. So it must be something in the deliberations themselves.
Veto power is a very good suggestion, at least before the verdict is in. It's all really in the trial court's discretion, unless the appeals court says never in Texas. It could then go to the TX Supreme Court. This is interesting.
Of course, more important is that they get the verdict right. Cameras helped make hash of the OJ trial.
Yeah, I was going to mention NY law but decided to keep it generic just to discount "finders keepers." Besides, I don't want to look it up any more than you do.
On obscure references, for anyone who wonders, NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
*
Funny you should attach this mud Q here -- it was the first thing that crossed my mind because of the GE debate. I thought GE's anti-dredging argument sounded plausible, and I'm an environmentalist, which means that of course if dredging caused more problems I would not be knee-jerk against GE (stereotypes of environmentalist are so ugly:).
They dredged in Boston Harbor, which has similar issues, to make way for the 3rd harbor tunnel, and put the material called mud on the bottom but toxic waste on the surface into barges. Then the Army Corps of Engineers forbade them from dumping it in Mass Bay as planned. So they had to stop digging with this incredibly expensive rented scoop until they found somewhere to put the muck. Oh yeah, then one of the barges sank at its berth. I think it went to the airport and, ultimately, I don't know. Illustrates how messy this stuff can be.
Anyway, I assume salvage would not involve that much disturbance of the river bed. Don't worry, if it is an issue someone will raise it.
Yep. I assumed inelastic demand to make it simpler.
OK, now redraw the curve with perfect law enforcement -- every copy is a legitimate copy. What happens? (Not that I think you'll say, but someone will -- no, the music companies do not all go out business.) Where's the optimum price to maximize profit? Where's the "fair" price?
I'm playing with mostly because these questions affect nearly every discretionary purchase we make. Music CD's are just among the more irritating items.
Actually there's a whole set of rules in admiralty for salvage rights over wrecks. This has come up more and more often as folks like Ballard locate old wrecks like Spanish galleons loaded with gold more easily. The disputes can get a little complicated.
Think of the ship at the bottom as not lost but in long-term storage. Just because someone can get to it before you can doesn't make it theirs. Access is not ownership. But if someone finds the wreck, they should be able to sell that information to the owner.
No, I can't justify these ancient rules. Changes may be in the wind.
I looked around a little more and found a typically misleading page about store refunds. At first it sounds like what I first said. Then at the *very* bottom they bury the warranty of merchantability -- here Gerogia's rule.
I don't know what state you live in AND DON'T TELL ME! If you burn with curiosity pull up your AG's site or check with in-state consumer protectiion agencies. Don't forget to check for local ordinances, too.
(As a practical matter few merchants will know all this stuff; as you discover the key is to be annoying anough that they pay you to go away.)
What I should have done is throw in the traditional YMMV and run like heck.
The real problem is that many people are willing to pay $8-10 for a CD but this is usually not an option. Given the choice between paying $18 and paying $0 many people choose $0.
Yes.
A thought experiment strictly from a buyer perspective:
At what price would
everyone pay?
At what price would no one pay?
OK, now plot every datapoint between these extremes, for number of purchases v. price. It's probably some sort of curve with two inflections.
Finally, pick the ideal point on this curve, factoring in the aggregate moral hazard of theft (that is, how much does it cost to lose a little bit of one's soul and steal).
I love that movie, esp. after I figured out what the name really means. (Think "troff.")
*
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs much of this. Looking at what I wrote and as I write this, I realize I botched the second half of what I said. Returns of something where you had second thoughts, that's up to the store. But if the product is defective the "implied waraanty of merchantability" kicks in. Here is a brief FAQ. This implied warranty can be disclaimed, that is, you can choose to buy without it.
There is also a closely related implied warranty of fitness, you can look that up yourself. Now, these rules vary from state to state, and your state may confer additional rights -- you've probably seen language to that effect in mfr warranties. Trivia: the act of purchase normally invokes the implied and express warranties, regardless of whether you send in the stupid little card. (Read the cards carefully; they will almost never say you have to send them in.)
Thanks for straightening me out.:)
The thing here, besides lousy customer service and faulty goods, is that Target apparently had reason to know it was selling defective DVD's. If it continued to sell them anyway, it should liable for not just breach of warranty but fraud.
As for the same-title exchange, they should have a three-strikes-you're-refunded policy. The "lemon laws" of many states, for example, set a maximum number of times you have to take your new car in for service over, say, the first year, before they have to give you a new car or restitution.
Good job, I hope you smoothed the road for the next disappointed tron-ster. Now -- do you believe in the users?
I don't think it's quite that sinister, though your portrayal of the music industry is considerably sexier than mine.
I won't even ask what you mean by "she loves loves loves her ding dongs." (Lest any guys get misplaced notions about Hilary, read this.) I mean, I like ding dongs as much as the next guy, but....
I've heard figures for the artist's cut ranging form 50 to $2. I don't know what's accurate, but assume it depends a lot on how much leverage the act has -- there's a difference between Bruce Springsteen and WeEatToads but their CD's are both expensive. (Springsteen may be cheaper because of volume.) (And I'm not starting a f*cking debate about musical tastes!) Must be nice to be a solo artist rather than have to split the coins with other band members.
As for markup, we rarely think about it as we happily pay for it. Next time you see a box of Wheaties, ask yourself how much the wheat cost. Probably less than a raw CD. Now look at that pretty and informative 4-color box it comes in. Which costs more? Then look around at the supermarket. How much does it cost to run? A lot. What does this have to do with the price of wheat? Nothing, but it has a heck of a lot to do with the price of Wheaties.
I'm glad also not to hear you (quite) say, "Well, I'd stop stealing if they'd just lower prices." Stealing will always be free (esp. when P2P cuts out the street corner middle man in the trenchcoat), and they can never compete with free. Just say "no" to extortion.:)
CD prices have fallen surprisingly little in 20 years -- about a third in inflation-adjusted dollars. I don't remember prices like this with vinyl, and when CD's came along there was a hefty premium for them. Yes, they provided higher quality, but I bet their production costs are now far lower.
I think the RIAA members need to do some serious introspection about their business model. That doesn't mean ignoring infringement, but realizing that the boat is sinking because of a lot of larger holes in the hull. Direct sales are a great concept; other methods to lower costs must exist. Note however that we do live in a society that somehow manages to buy $130 Nikes that cost $30 wholesale. (Astonishingly, Nike only makes a few dollars profit on each pair.) The record industry is far from the only industry with big markups, so don't rush to any conclusions.
The RIAA members should not abuse market statistics or fix prices to promote their cause. Resentful consumers should not steal to promote theirs. Now, all join hands and sing....
The funny thing is I'm sure 99% of the public has no idea what all this talk is about. The one-quarter who do don't even talk to the three-eighths of the 10% of the last ninth who uh... Well, I'd like to see some statistics on that, I'm 110% certain.
You're like THE person to get this right. Here the 4-paragraph CNN article has the word "illegal" like 75 times in connection with these counterfeit CD's and no one sees it? This is plain vanilla law enforcement -- at the behest of the industry, but that's nothing new. Manufacturers push for raids on counterfeit items ranging from handbags to blue jeans to perfume to....
The other point you make implicitly is that what these retailer are doing is alsofraud to the buyer, if the buyer is unaware he's not getting the real thing. If the buyer does know it's bootleg, he's hosed. Here the RIAA is doing something that benefits the honest consumer, albeit indirectly.
Oh yes, everyone rally in favor of mom'n'pop fraud stores?
You deserve a couple dozen more ++ points. I'd give you mine if I could.
Slashdot Mirror
The DMA has parallel do-not-mail and do-not-call lists. As noted elesewhere, you may sign on free by mail. Why it is $5 over the net, I can't imagine. It must cost $ to process all that mail. Perhaps they want to discourage people.
Your name is purged after 5 years I believe.
There is also a free service run by the (3?) credit reporting services that will prevent any credit-card solicitations from being sent to you. I suppose it puts a flag on your credit report. You probably know that solicitations can be stolen and filled out fraudulently by a 3rd party. This is a good thing, and can be done over the phone with an automated system.
Back to the DMA -- I don't think they're evil, exactly, but don't think they set up the don't bother me lists out of public-mindedness. Like the movie industry with its self-imposed ratings, I believe they set it up to try to head off federal regulation. Better to self-regulate they figured, and benefit from the fact most people will never sign up.
You're right on your first point, commercial speech is "speech" and protected, though less so than other categories of speech.
...is not correct. Commercial speech is "the lowest form of life" in free speech and relatively easy to regulate, and is quite regulated as it is. The reason the gov't has had "difficulty" has been lack of public interest (it's taken a while) and industry lobbying. The laws are in their infancy, and the FCCC proposal is completely novel on the federal level. give it time, and your support. (Much of the state anti-spam problems have to do with getting their hands on the perpetrators; I chatted with the Washington AAG involved in one of the first cases, who said they had to hire 3 private PI's for help finding the spammer! He was setting up fake corporations, moving every week, etc.)
However
However, free speech is PRECISELY why the government has difficulty regulating how your mailbox can be used, and it is largely why you get so much junk mail. It is also why most anti-spam legislation is pretty meek, because forced speech and undue limitations can well invalidate these laws.
Free speech is an issue here, but not a dominant one. An outright ban on commercial solicitations would be an outrage, but asking people their preferences is not. If you tell the marketers to leave your door, they have to go; and if you simply mount a "No Solictors" sign that should be the end of the matter for door-to-door brush salesmen. Same here.
Yes, Virginia, phosphors do wear out over time. The problem used to be much, much worse.
... turn the darn monitor off for a power consumption of maybe 2 watts (off doesn't quite mean off). A friend and I went to ridiculous lengths during the California energy crisis to persuade his tech company IT dept. to tell everyone to turn off their 3,000 machines when not in use, or at least overnight, or AT LEAST over the weekends and holidays.
... they could upgrade the O/S ... but what they have works. There are cheap utilities that persuade NT to play along, but that would require getting the IT people to install it, and if they were unwilling to listen about turning monitors off, well.... you get it.
:)
I hate screensavers that run more than ten minutes -- they rarely seem clever any more, and more importantly they seduce a lot of people into thinking they are somehow saving energy. In fact, if the tube is fired up the box is consuming nearly full power and releasing nearly full heat.
MUCH better is any kind of sleep mode, which might reduce a 75-watt load to 5 watts. Or
They told workers to leave them on because of the old tale that electronics last longer that way. More research, I eventually reached a very friendly engineer with the Sony monitors operations. In short, the leave-'em-on philosophy made some sense before all solid-state surface-mount design prevailed because of thermal shock and "creep," which made IC's rise in their sockets. Now everything is soldered and the components are many times more reliable. In terms of monitor wear, it's probably a toss-up. No one would seriously leave their TV on 24 hours a day to save money, right? And even if wear were accelerated somehow with the machines on 1/3 as long, the amount of energy consumed would have bought a ton of hardware.
We calculated the excess electrical in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that's before factoring in the added load of the air conditioning to remove the waste heat (most of the energy used goes to waste heat). (A rough guess: the best estimate I could find suggested it takes 1 watt of A/C consumption to remove 3-4 watts of heat.) There was also a citizenship issue to energy conservation at the time, as there were rolling blackouts to ration energy the closer the system came to overload. (You all remember the stories.)
Um, anyway, I hope I made a point. Er, my point. One thing Apple did right was to support Energy Star early on. "By design," MS Windows NT 4.0, which his company uses, does not support power mgmt even though the newer monitors typically do. Yes
I think they did start telling employees to turn the monitors off just recently, maybe 18 months after our email campaign and a half-million in electricity. Could the computers be next? They're just dumb workstations and don't do anything in the off hours.
Last nail in the coffin: To give you a sense of his IT department, they sent a tech down once who could not be made to understand, by several engineers, the difference between a SCSI and a parallel port ("Well, it should fit."). No shit.
stealing still has cost. Most notable is time cost -- it takes time to locate and download a song you want.
Hmm. Another interesting point.
Now, for accounting purposes, what dollar value do we put on that time? How much does your average computer-literate thief charge per hour anyway? Do you have to withhold taxes?
You are partly right that they will "compete with piracy on a price level" when the cost of the disk is less than the "cost" of the other methods. However, people often value their own time very cheaply; and, technically, stealing is against the law, so merchants shouldn't have to out-compete it. I know you're speaking in practical terms, not legal. I'd like to see how much online custom disk-ordering would costs (the quality would be higher), esp. for legacy stuff with a current promotional budget of $0.00.
Also, is there a Netflix for music CD's? (Besides my local public library, which has a surprising variety of stuff. Support your libraries!)
I doubt there are many musicians wild about the labels, but I had to talk to one before I realized they liked Napster far less. Napster just seemed like a good deal to the rest of use because, well, it was fun and cheap. Napster's gone, piracy's growing. (I laughed at the RIAA effort to spoof P2P transfers with bogus files -- fire with fire?)
:)
I can think of few contexts where monopoly is good, other than small-town hospitals, the water department, stuff like that. Don;t get me started on thos diamond fiends; I only figured it out after buying an engagement ring. (That plus the blood diamond thing.)
If lawyers were almost universally ethical people, the jokes wouldn't be funny.
Quick, name a group of universally ethical people!
I hope you didn't say "priest."
Let alone "software engineer." (eek!)
The jokes are pretty harmless, but I think lawyers are just the contemporary group to target. Not that many years ago it was doctors (think "golf" and "take two aspirin") -- why aren't doctors funny now? Most of the racist and ethnic jokes are taboo now. Sexist, even blonde jokes, too. I know of plenty of engineer jokes, but most people don't think of engineers as funny. Funny-strange, yes; funny-haha, no. What do engineers do anyway? The jokes there are all about how they prefer talking frogs to dates. (My best friend is one, honest. An engineer, not a frog.)
The lawyer jokes are fine; I just reserve the right to retaliate with deadly wit... Stupid hateful stereotypes, well that's ignorance more than humor, and reflects badly on the teller. There's a sort of mind that sees intricate conspiracies everywhere that makes me wary.
The +1 observation is a good one, but who the hell skims at less than +3?
I didn't know Bruce Boxleitner (B5) was in it? fan site with irritating MIDI music
;-)
Any good? "Making of". (Same as DVD "bonus disk."?)
At one point, TRON was state-of-the-art
Oh yes. Unfortunately, that point was several years before Tron was made.
I did like the visual integration of humans and computer images, not just as something novel for its time but also for its ethereal quality. Plus Tron (TRace ON -- was that BASIC?) gave everyong such a fine introduction to computer architecture!
On most of your Q's I have no idea, but I know others have put a lot of thought into them. Every wreck is case-by-case, esp. since the problem is so new, all these ancient wrecks being accessible suddenly.
how many people are still getting things in the titanic? i think that there are rightful owners, but those owners can't really go down there for themselves.
I don't knnow, I'd forgotten about it. But if "getting things" is stealing, it's still stealing if they're old and on the ocean floor.
i think this is more in terms of finding a $100 bill on the street, dated from 1950. with no claims on record since then.
Sure. But most wrecks are not like that, even ones 500 years old. If a ship sinks with $200 million in gold, the owners remember it.
Jurors are just one of many checks upon the government.
Yep. But not this way. Kind of weird that of the checks and balances, just nullification would be a secret, huh? Sometimes you have to break the rules to do the right thing, but if you nullify you're still breaking the rules; it's not your right. As the rules are now, if you believe in nullification you have no place on a jury -- or on the bench for that matter.
Lawyers and executives and musicians and record shop owners and .....
I was kidding, anyway.
I would say that it is one of the unenumerated rights of the people.
That's kind of a good one, but such a right has never been recognized. Quite the opposite, our courts routinely condemn it.
"the KKK marching in Skokie" is basically understood as valid free speech caselaw. This has nothing to do with the subversion to our judicial system posed by jurors feeling free to ignore the laws and the evidence.
I have no idea whether it should be a right, just that it does not exist right now. Many people say it does, but then it's a right you can never admit to using if you want to be a juror -- you have to lie to use it. Sounds fishy, doesn't it.
There is a reluctance to intrude on jury room proceedings or to subject jurors to the fear of prosecution. This goes to the fair trial right. There are exceptions for extremes like jury tampering, the intrusion of outside influences such as bribery. The truth is, most jurors do their jobs.
I quoted a case here somewhere affirming that a juror should be dismissed per court rules if he or she intends nullification. It is hard to see how exercising one's right is grounds for dismissal, isn't it?
We adopted the basic British framework but dropped plenty of it. I don't know details on how or when, just what we've been doing for 200 years.
Actually, according to our founding fathers, Jury Nullificaiton was and is a right. This can easily be seen by looking at statements by Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
... it is not a right.
Nonsense on the law and the history. Cites? And even if you could find a "statement" remember it is an opinion, not the law. If you want to know what the law says, read the law. Jury nullification is on page ??.
Did the jury nullifications of Peter Zenger and William Penn just not happen?
They happened, and that does not mean nullification is not a right. The other day someone was shot in court; this did not mean shooting in court is a right.
History: Note that the Zenger trial was in 1735. The Penn trial in 1670. The American Revolution began in 1776. This is 2002. Aren't your examples a little dusty, as they considerably predate both the Constitution and the United States?
It is true that the most recent applications of jury nullification -- the acquittal of white's for crimes against blacks -- have been regrettable. But that is not a problem with jury nullification, but rather with jury selection.
Nullification was regrettable. Jurors who followed the law would have gotten these cases right.
Besides, the benefits jury nullification can provide far outweigh its drawbacks, in that it allows ordinary people to prevent the government from forcing draconian laws on any individual citizen. Fugutive slave laws were wrong, and were rightfully disregarded by juries. Likewise with laws during prohibition. And defamation laws to which the "truth was no defense".
These supposed benefits are all well and good. NONE of it shows that nullification is a right, just that "it happens."
Mistaken on spelling? Well yes, and what does that make you? A spelling nazi, a specific kind of slashdot low life.
Well, you did do better on it this time.
There is one point here: Nullification is not a right. If you think it is, show me WHERE it says so. You can't, because
The Thomas case the defense attorney did not defend nullification because it would have been borderline malpractice to do so. Instead the defense focused on whether the juror had been caught legitimately. If jury nullification were acceptable, there would be no need to address how the juror was caught. The court decided to restate (not change) the law concerning nullification all the same, with the intent of making clear that dismissing jurors for threatening nullifciation is valid, even compelled; just not this juror. This statement is not dicta, it is binding law for the courts of the Second Circuit (I worked for the Seventh Circuit). This juror did not get off on "other grounds," rather he was likely guilty but there was a flaw in the proof that endangered jury privacy. This is like a drug dealer getting off because he was caught in an illegal search. He's still a criminal, but other principles of justice have to be honored as well. Drug dealing is still just as illegal as before.
Their denunciation could not have been clearer (this is hot language for a court, you see):
And for other questions of con law, there is plenty written on them. And that's just it -- nothing in favor of jury nullification is anywhere in the case law, except to recognize that it happens sometimes and should be prevented whenever possible.
I state all this because I do want to see that this is correct state of the law, stated many times and many places. If you can show me a holding that goes the other way, please do. I glanced at the handful of cases cited by the FIJA and the like, and they were not at all supportive.
PBS/Frontline has extensive data on this project -- a FAQ that talks about Judge Ted Poe a bit, and similar tapings to date.
... where do you think they hid the camera?)
This is a good example of the First Amendment running into fair trial concerns.
The only completely safe way to do it would be to tape it without telling any of the jurors.
But that might raise certain privacy issues, plus it would just pollute every single jury deliberation that follows! ([whisper]Hey
I'm 90% they were going to ask consent at voir dire. Only 14 of 110 refused. Funny, the prosecution's objection: "Allowing a camera in the jury room during capital murder deliberations would violate Texas law by creating new reasons to disqualify potential jurors, Harris County prosecutors are arguing." However, "a lawyer for state District Judge Ted Poe, who approved the videotaping for a documentary, said Wednesday that the new argument to ban the camera was raised too late." Note that the judge has a lawyer!
I agree that the prosecution's standing is a little hard to figure, though I would really want their agreement to videotaping. They appear to be positioning themselves as defending the jurors, although 9 out of 20 jurors said no problem. At bottom, they must feel that the cameras will decrease likelihood of a death sentence -- now why it would is an interesting question. If death is chosen or not, we know how everyone voted anyway. So it must be something in the deliberations themselves.
Veto power is a very good suggestion, at least before the verdict is in. It's all really in the trial court's discretion, unless the appeals court says never in Texas. It could then go to the TX Supreme Court. This is interesting.
Of course, more important is that they get the verdict right. Cameras helped make hash of the OJ trial.
Yeah, I was going to mention NY law but decided to keep it generic just to discount "finders keepers." Besides, I don't want to look it up any more than you do.
:).
On obscure references, for anyone who wonders, NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
*
Funny you should attach this mud Q here -- it was the first thing that crossed my mind because of the GE debate. I thought GE's anti-dredging argument sounded plausible, and I'm an environmentalist, which means that of course if dredging caused more problems I would not be knee-jerk against GE (stereotypes of environmentalist are so ugly
They dredged in Boston Harbor, which has similar issues, to make way for the 3rd harbor tunnel, and put the material called mud on the bottom but toxic waste on the surface into barges. Then the Army Corps of Engineers forbade them from dumping it in Mass Bay as planned. So they had to stop digging with this incredibly expensive rented scoop until they found somewhere to put the muck. Oh yeah, then one of the barges sank at its berth. I think it went to the airport and, ultimately, I don't know. Illustrates how messy this stuff can be.
Anyway, I assume salvage would not involve that much disturbance of the river bed. Don't worry, if it is an issue someone will raise it.
Yep. I assumed inelastic demand to make it simpler.
OK, now redraw the curve with perfect law enforcement -- every copy is a legitimate copy. What happens? (Not that I think you'll say, but someone will -- no, the music companies do not all go out business.) Where's the optimum price to maximize profit? Where's the "fair" price?
I'm playing with mostly because these questions affect nearly every discretionary purchase we make. Music CD's are just among the more irritating items.
I have a hard time feeling anything but a dull sense that justice is done when a million petty thieves rob the giant
:)
That's how they'll quote you, too.
Actually there's a whole set of rules in admiralty for salvage rights over wrecks. This has come up more and more often as folks like Ballard locate old wrecks like Spanish galleons loaded with gold more easily. The disputes can get a little complicated.
Think of the ship at the bottom as not lost but in long-term storage. Just because someone can get to it before you can doesn't make it theirs. Access is not ownership. But if someone finds the wreck, they should be able to sell that information to the owner.
No, I can't justify these ancient rules. Changes may be in the wind.
I looked around a little more and found a typically misleading page about store refunds. At first it sounds like what I first said. Then at the *very* bottom they bury the warranty of merchantability -- here Gerogia's rule.
I don't know what state you live in AND DON'T TELL ME! If you burn with curiosity pull up your AG's site or check with in-state consumer protectiion agencies. Don't forget to check for local ordinances, too.
(As a practical matter few merchants will know all this stuff; as you discover the key is to be annoying anough that they pay you to go away.)
What I should have done is throw in the traditional YMMV and run like heck.
[runs like heck]
Yes.
A thought experiment strictly from a buyer perspective:
Interesting?
Frankly, I am very impressed.
:)
You actually admitted buying "Tron"!
I love that movie, esp. after I figured out what the name really means. (Think "troff.")
*
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs much of this. Looking at what I wrote and as I write this, I realize I botched the second half of what I said. Returns of something where you had second thoughts, that's up to the store. But if the product is defective the "implied waraanty of merchantability" kicks in. Here is a brief FAQ. This implied warranty can be disclaimed, that is, you can choose to buy without it.
There is also a closely related implied warranty of fitness, you can look that up yourself. Now, these rules vary from state to state, and your state may confer additional rights -- you've probably seen language to that effect in mfr warranties. Trivia: the act of purchase normally invokes the implied and express warranties, regardless of whether you send in the stupid little card. (Read the cards carefully; they will almost never say you have to send them in.)
Thanks for straightening me out.
The thing here, besides lousy customer service and faulty goods, is that Target apparently had reason to know it was selling defective DVD's. If it continued to sell them anyway, it should liable for not just breach of warranty but fraud.
As for the same-title exchange, they should have a three-strikes-you're-refunded policy. The "lemon laws" of many states, for example, set a maximum number of times you have to take your new car in for service over, say, the first year, before they have to give you a new car or restitution.
Good job, I hope you smoothed the road for the next disappointed tron-ster. Now -- do you believe in the users?
I don't think it's quite that sinister, though your portrayal of the music industry is considerably sexier than mine.
I won't even ask what you mean by "she loves loves loves her ding dongs." (Lest any guys get misplaced notions about Hilary, read this.) I mean, I like ding dongs as much as the next guy, but....
I've heard figures for the artist's cut ranging form 50 to $2. I don't know what's accurate, but assume it depends a lot on how much leverage the act has -- there's a difference between Bruce Springsteen and WeEatToads but their CD's are both expensive. (Springsteen may be cheaper because of volume.) (And I'm not starting a f*cking debate about musical tastes!) Must be nice to be a solo artist rather than have to split the coins with other band members.
As for markup, we rarely think about it as we happily pay for it. Next time you see a box of Wheaties, ask yourself how much the wheat cost. Probably less than a raw CD. Now look at that pretty and informative 4-color box it comes in. Which costs more? Then look around at the supermarket. How much does it cost to run? A lot. What does this have to do with the price of wheat? Nothing, but it has a heck of a lot to do with the price of Wheaties.
Amen.
:)
I'm glad also not to hear you (quite) say, "Well, I'd stop stealing if they'd just lower prices." Stealing will always be free (esp. when P2P cuts out the street corner middle man in the trenchcoat), and they can never compete with free. Just say "no" to extortion.
CD prices have fallen surprisingly little in 20 years -- about a third in inflation-adjusted dollars. I don't remember prices like this with vinyl, and when CD's came along there was a hefty premium for them. Yes, they provided higher quality, but I bet their production costs are now far lower.
I think the RIAA members need to do some serious introspection about their business model. That doesn't mean ignoring infringement, but realizing that the boat is sinking because of a lot of larger holes in the hull. Direct sales are a great concept; other methods to lower costs must exist. Note however that we do live in a society that somehow manages to buy $130 Nikes that cost $30 wholesale. (Astonishingly, Nike only makes a few dollars profit on each pair.) The record industry is far from the only industry with big markups, so don't rush to any conclusions.
The RIAA members should not abuse market statistics or fix prices to promote their cause. Resentful consumers should not steal to promote theirs. Now, all join hands and sing....
The funny thing is I'm sure 99% of the public has no idea what all this talk is about. The one-quarter who do don't even talk to the three-eighths of the 10% of the last ninth who uh... Well, I'd like to see some statistics on that, I'm 110% certain.
I'm not sure what you mean? The AP is just another conduit of news, and a prolific one with unusual weight in smaller newspapers.
If you mean bylines, AP has provided them since about WWII. Subscribers can omit the byline at will. The author was Mark Sherman.
You're like THE person to get this right. Here the 4-paragraph CNN article has the word "illegal" like 75 times in connection with these counterfeit CD's and no one sees it? This is plain vanilla law enforcement -- at the behest of the industry, but that's nothing new. Manufacturers push for raids on counterfeit items ranging from handbags to blue jeans to perfume to....
The other point you make implicitly is that what these retailer are doing is also fraud to the buyer, if the buyer is unaware he's not getting the real thing. If the buyer does know it's bootleg, he's hosed. Here the RIAA is doing something that benefits the honest consumer, albeit indirectly.
Oh yes, everyone rally in favor of mom'n'pop fraud stores?
You deserve a couple dozen more ++ points. I'd give you mine if I could.