Re:Music Industry Attorneys are on Retainer
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
I agree with most of what you said, except your point about 'attorneys on retainer.'
I assume you meant on staff, as a retainer is actually just up-front cash and is returned if not used at the end of representation.
Attorneys on staff are no different from programmers on staff- more work=more attorneys=more cost. Less work=less attorneys=less cost. It's just not true that they are pursuing minor offenses because they've got these hired guns just lazing around the break room.
They pursue minor offenses because of the concept of 'sleeping on your rights'. If they once deem an infringement of their rights acceptable, they will in effect lose those rights, because future infringers (big and small) will point to that once and assert that the rights have been abandoned and/or that the damages done by the infringement must be zero.
...will be the eventual widespread use of more-secure, hard-to-prove-who's-using-it, hard-to-prove-what-its-used-for file sharing software. Something like Freenet, although I'm not trying to start a debate about a particular project's privacy/security.
Remember, enough complexity = reasonable doubt.
The problem is, truly bad actors can use those more-secure options. Terrorists, kiddie fiddlers, David Hasselhoff. I know they're already out there doing their secret, ugly stuff, but the more prevalent those options are the better for those bad actors.
So, in effect, the RIAA/MPAA is
1) engaging in an 'arms race' it ultimately cannot win and 2) encouraging/promoting a much darker internet.
Meanwhile, sales are up for DVD's, and the music industry continues to puke out horrible pap and insist that the reason nobody's buying is piracy.
Of course there are problems. Many are quite serious. They matter. But they don't alter the fact that the U.S. is a spectacular success in just about any terms you might choose.
We do have major corporate interests here. We also have major non-corporate interests. Some of MY personal interests are best served by policies that are good for business, some of them are best served by policies that are good for the environment or for law enforcement or for my personal liberty or for Europe's peaceful well-being or whatever. We are a house divided in a THOUSAND THOUSAND WAYS, none of the divides cutting so deeply that I do not bridge them every day depending on what issue is at stake.
It's Alexander Hamilton's concept of the 'vast, diverse commercial republic' and it is the true genius of the United States and of liberal democratic republics everywhere. We've successfully made chaotic and self-serving behavior work for us.
Capitalism is a crucial part of the spectacular success that you are so disdainful of. Look at our society in a broad historical context. We rock.
1) All of you who are vigorously defending the scientific method- relax. Scientists are people too. Saying that they are immune from bias just because their field is objective ignores the massive differences of opinion WITHIN every field of science. It's just an absurd non-argument. OF COURSE 'scientists' are EVERY BIT as prone to political position-taking as anyone else. I do trust 'SCIENCE' but I do not particularly trust any organization just because it has scientists as members and the word 'science' in its name.
2) The group in question is largely composed of non-scientists.
3) Science groups have made other wonderful, politically motivated claims in the past. Nazi 'scientists' had all sorts of wonderful positions on scientific issues. At one time it was mainstream scientific belief that black Africans are objectively inferior to Europeans due to a supposed (and of course actually non-existent) lack of cranial capacity. At one time it was absurd to believe men build flying machines, that a universal calculating machine could be devised, that man could break the 4-minute mile. Alar was going to kill all of our children. Etc, etc, etc. Science is simply not sacrosanct.
4) The WHOLE POINT of the original post is to complain about political pressure and/or political motives distorting science. The very idea that it's reasonable to MAKE THAT COMPLAINT, then follow up with self-righteous bleating about how pure science is when someone you disagree with points out that there's bias in all directions- it's kinda lame.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of what you said, except your point about 'attorneys on retainer.'
I assume you meant on staff, as a retainer is actually just up-front cash and is returned if not used at the end of representation.
Attorneys on staff are no different from programmers on staff- more work=more attorneys=more cost. Less work=less attorneys=less cost. It's just not true that they are pursuing minor offenses because they've got these hired guns just lazing around the break room.
They pursue minor offenses because of the concept of 'sleeping on your rights'. If they once deem an infringement of their rights acceptable, they will in effect lose those rights, because future infringers (big and small) will point to that once and assert that the rights have been abandoned and/or that the damages done by the infringement must be zero.
...will be the eventual widespread use of more-secure, hard-to-prove-who's-using-it, hard-to-prove-what-its-used-for file sharing software. Something like Freenet, although I'm not trying to start a debate about a particular project's privacy/security.
Remember, enough complexity = reasonable doubt.
The problem is, truly bad actors can use those more-secure options. Terrorists, kiddie fiddlers, David Hasselhoff. I know they're already out there doing their secret, ugly stuff, but the more prevalent those options are the better for those bad actors.
So, in effect, the RIAA/MPAA is
1) engaging in an 'arms race' it ultimately cannot win and
2) encouraging/promoting a much darker internet.
Meanwhile, sales are up for DVD's, and the music industry continues to puke out horrible pap and insist that the reason nobody's buying is piracy.
And you are smug and condescending.
Read much history? CONTEXT is everything.
Of course there are problems. Many are quite serious. They matter. But they don't alter the fact that the U.S. is a spectacular success in just about any terms you might choose.
Your post is not offensive, just patently false.
We do have major corporate interests here. We also have major non-corporate interests. Some of MY personal interests are best served by policies that are good for business, some of them are best served by policies that are good for the environment or for law enforcement or for my personal liberty or for Europe's peaceful well-being or whatever. We are a house divided in a THOUSAND THOUSAND WAYS, none of the divides cutting so deeply that I do not bridge them every day depending on what issue is at stake.
It's Alexander Hamilton's concept of the 'vast, diverse commercial republic' and it is the true genius of the United States and of liberal democratic republics everywhere. We've successfully made chaotic and self-serving behavior work for us.
Capitalism is a crucial part of the spectacular success that you are so disdainful of. Look at our society in a broad historical context. We rock.
A few points.
1) All of you who are vigorously defending the scientific method- relax. Scientists are people too. Saying that they are immune from bias just because their field is objective ignores the massive differences of opinion WITHIN every field of science. It's just an absurd non-argument. OF COURSE 'scientists' are EVERY BIT as prone to political position-taking as anyone else. I do trust 'SCIENCE' but I do not particularly trust any organization just because it has scientists as members and the word 'science' in its name.
2) The group in question is largely composed of non-scientists.
3) Science groups have made other wonderful, politically motivated claims in the past. Nazi 'scientists' had all sorts of wonderful positions on scientific issues. At one time it was mainstream scientific belief that black Africans are objectively inferior to Europeans due to a supposed (and of course actually non-existent) lack of cranial capacity. At one time it was absurd to believe men build flying machines, that a universal calculating machine could be devised, that man could break the 4-minute mile. Alar was going to kill all of our children. Etc, etc, etc. Science is simply not sacrosanct.
4) The WHOLE POINT of the original post is to complain about political pressure and/or political motives distorting science. The very idea that it's reasonable to MAKE THAT COMPLAINT, then follow up with self-righteous bleating about how pure science is when someone you disagree with points out that there's bias in all directions- it's kinda lame.