Not to mention that unless you are totally clueless you don't go and buy from itms not knowing they play on your ipod. I dont think I know anyone who uses itunes who doesnt own a mac or an ipod. Windows users who use itunes do so of their own volition, considering windows comes with WMP. If you bought an ipod, then you end up using itunes.
If you dont want to buy from itms, then dont. In fact why even complain about itms only working with an ipod when you can go use napster or real for your WMA based player?
The only reason anyone would complain about this is they either have ipod envy, or they have itms envy.
"...make them compensate the artists and labels they are stealing from."
Don't most artists make only a pittance on their album sales anyway, even after they have paid back the label for their 'generous' promotional contract?
Call me cynical, but claiming that the settlement money is going to go to artists seems disingenuous. Of course claiming 'lost' profits by the labels on file sharing is moreso.
With the bill of rights, those actions which are protected are specifically laid out. IIRC from my constitutional history, the bill of rights was laid out right with specific protections as to preclude the situation that you describe, that being 'you have them unless they are prohibited', that is to say to keep them from being prohibited later on. The feeling was that those rights, as not being spelled out were not in fact protected. Please brush up on your history.
As for me being crazy, dont be a jackass, you dont want to read something, fix your fliters, and above all dont actually *reply*.
as for #3, if a person wants to give up their citizenship, it shouldn't require the acquiescence of the govt. This implies you can be forced to remain a citizen against your will.
In fact, it already has--the 1882 ruling that made corporations equivalent to individuals under the law. An entity with potentially hundreds of employees and immense concentrations of wealth and access is given the same recognition under the law as each individual employee of that corporation. All else being equal, the corporation can outspend that employee in promoting the preferred policies of the corporation's controllers.
Perhaps im delusional, but I feel it was not the intent of the bill of rights to confer rights to non-person entities.
Actually I dont recall the constitution laying out groups as a protected class that inherit the rights of their members.
Only actual individuals have rights, any other artificial conglomerate has privileges that we as the people grant upon them, and can revoke at will, if they are not living up to the responsibilities of those privileges.
Claiming a group inherits the 'rights' of the individuals is not only folly but dangerous. You would have to explain why a group doesn't have the 'right' to bear arms, for instance. If a group inherits the 'right' of freedom of speech, it logically follows that it can exercise all the right granted to its member individuals.
So please ponder the consequences of your assertion, and I hope you can still sleep at night.
wow this guy sounds like the bastard child of Jack Valenti, when he claimed that you are stealing if you dont watch the ads because of the ficitious 'contract' that you get tv for 'free' that are paid for by the ads.
Why would someone report it to their ISP? the only reason woudl be that they cant seem to figure out where the kiddie porn they are looking at is coming from. So the so the next thing is why not just make it a crime for any web server to not report the porn to the govt themselves in a reasonable fashion. why make an ISP do the work for them?
Thanks for the info. And its very interesting, the state cant make the seller pay, but could instead make you pay. This is the place for the case to be made, if a state cannot force taxation on the selling side of interstate commerce, why can it on the buying side. Being a resident of the state does not make it any less interstate commerce. I suppose this is why they call it a 'use tax' meaning a buyers tax. Of course in the current political climate the winds may tell of a win for the actual people here. Of course a discussion of who the govt should be working for is for another post.
I'm pretty sure they've already been tested in court enough times that this isn;t an issue.
Well firstly, the internet didnt exist when some of these were created, and neither did the internet tax ban. So that there is enough to drive a federal lawsuit. As for your assertion, it sounds much like you are guessing. Can you provide some references of said federal cases?
It seems to be a red herring on what they call it. It amounts the the same thing, they could call it a 3 headed chicken. However a court will have to decide if it is in fact a sales tax (aka purchase tax, a sales tax would have to be paid by the seller:P)
Ahh how they have forgotten Divx the circuit city-lawyer venture. When Divx went belly up, anyone taht got sucked in to their 'lifetime' plan was left with unplayable media.
So napster, please feel free to duplicate that success!
Well yes we do need to read what he actually said:
"Year-to-date for 2005, Microsoft has fixed 15 vulnerabilities" "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 users have had to patch 34 vulnerabilities" "SuSE Enterprise Linux 9 users have had to patch over 78 vulnerabilities"
Lets read these carefully, because MS are masters of spin. And we know that nothing they say on these topics arent carefully constructed to *sound* like they mean the same thing, but arent in fact the same thing.
MS says they have patched 15. This is not the same as the number that *need* to be patched, how many are still unpatched.
He says the other 'have had to patch' all this really says that the have been patches for 78 things. The only information we can glean (assuming the numbers are correct) is that that the number of things that have been fixed, also no info on what hasnt been fixed, or how many are outstanding.
So really MS isnt technically comparing the same things.
Please also see this comment for another shade of this, being OS patches vs app patches.
Not to be inflammatory here, isnt it quite possible that those ppl who are less likely to be affected by stress are also less likely to be aware of not only all the details, but also all the consequences?
This would seem to reinforce the behavior patterns i see everyday, ppl seemingly way to wrapped up in whatever has their attention span filled that second to notice anything else that is going on around them.
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at the start of Trek, it quite clear that Rick Berman doenst know what hes doing:)
Not to mention that unless you are totally clueless you don't go and buy from itms not knowing they play on your ipod. I dont think I know anyone who uses itunes who doesnt own a mac or an ipod. Windows users who use itunes do so of their own volition, considering windows comes with WMP. If you bought an ipod, then you end up using itunes.
If you dont want to buy from itms, then dont. In fact why even complain about itms only working with an ipod when you can go use napster or real for your WMA based player?
The only reason anyone would complain about this is they either have ipod envy, or they have itms envy.
I'll sleep easier tonight knowing that artists like p-diddy, christinia agulueera, and usher won't be cheated from what's rightfully their's.
you mean a warm spot in musical hell?
"...make them compensate the artists and labels they are stealing from."
Don't most artists make only a pittance on their album sales anyway, even after they have paid back the label for their 'generous' promotional contract?
Call me cynical, but claiming that the settlement money is going to go to artists seems disingenuous. Of course claiming 'lost' profits by the labels on file sharing is moreso.
"According to the FCC, the flag is going to ease the nation's transition from today's analog televisions to tomorrow's high-definition televisions."
Funny the only thing the broadcast flag is meant to ease is the minds of the media fatcats.
Ahem,
With the bill of rights, those actions which are protected are specifically laid out. IIRC from my constitutional history, the bill of rights was laid out right with specific protections as to preclude the situation that you describe, that being 'you have them unless they are prohibited', that is to say to keep them from being prohibited later on. The feeling was that those rights, as not being spelled out were not in fact protected. Please brush up on your history.
As for me being crazy, dont be a jackass, you dont want to read something, fix your fliters, and above all dont actually *reply*.
are you a damned idiot?
as for #3, if a person wants to give up their citizenship, it shouldn't require the acquiescence of the govt. This implies you can be forced to remain a citizen against your will.
In fact, it already has--the 1882 ruling that made corporations equivalent to individuals under the law. An entity with potentially hundreds of employees and immense concentrations of wealth and access is given the same recognition under the law as each individual employee of that corporation. All else being equal, the corporation can outspend that employee in promoting the preferred policies of the corporation's controllers.
Perhaps im delusional, but I feel it was not the intent of the bill of rights to confer rights to non-person entities.
Actually I dont recall the constitution laying out groups as a protected class that inherit the rights of their members.
Only actual individuals have rights, any other artificial conglomerate has privileges that we as the people grant upon them, and can revoke at will, if they are not living up to the responsibilities of those privileges.
Claiming a group inherits the 'rights' of the individuals is not only folly but dangerous. You would have to explain why a group doesn't have the 'right' to bear arms, for instance. If a group inherits the 'right' of freedom of speech, it logically follows that it can exercise all the right granted to its member individuals.
So please ponder the consequences of your assertion, and I hope you can still sleep at night.
wow this guy sounds like the bastard child of Jack Valenti, when he claimed that you are stealing if you dont watch the ads because of the ficitious 'contract' that you get tv for 'free' that are paid for by the ads.
Why would someone report it to their ISP? the only reason woudl be that they cant seem to figure out where the kiddie porn they are looking at is coming from. So the so the next thing is why not just make it a crime for any web server to not report the porn to the govt themselves in a reasonable fashion. why make an ISP do the work for them?
Mod parent up informative.
Thanks for the info. And its very interesting, the state cant make the seller pay, but could instead make you pay. This is the place for the case to be made, if a state cannot force taxation on the selling side of interstate commerce, why can it on the buying side. Being a resident of the state does not make it any less interstate commerce. I suppose this is why they call it a 'use tax' meaning a buyers tax. Of course in the current political climate the winds may tell of a win for the actual people here. Of course a discussion of who the govt should be working for is for another post.
Yes sorry, i got my things confused. Regardless its still an interstate commerce issue.
I'm pretty sure they've already been tested in court enough times that this isn;t an issue.
Well firstly, the internet didnt exist when some of these were created, and neither did the internet tax ban. So that there is enough to drive a federal lawsuit. As for your assertion, it sounds much like you are guessing. Can you provide some references of said federal cases?
It seems to be a red herring on what they call it. It amounts the the same thing, they could call it a 3 headed chicken. However a court will have to decide if it is in fact a sales tax (aka purchase tax, a sales tax would have to be paid by the seller:P)
Its a good thing those cafes are 200m away. This is sure to be too far a walk for the chinese computer CHUDs the internet will surely spawn:)
Ahh how they have forgotten Divx the circuit city-lawyer venture. When Divx went belly up, anyone taht got sucked in to their 'lifetime' plan was left with unplayable media.
So napster, please feel free to duplicate that success!
Well yes we do need to read what he actually said :
"Year-to-date for 2005, Microsoft has fixed 15 vulnerabilities"
"Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 users have had to patch 34 vulnerabilities"
"SuSE Enterprise Linux 9 users have had to patch over 78 vulnerabilities"
Lets read these carefully, because MS are masters of spin. And we know that nothing they say on these topics arent carefully constructed to *sound* like they mean the same thing, but arent in fact the same thing.
MS says they have patched 15. This is not the same as the number that *need* to be patched, how many are still unpatched.
He says the other 'have had to patch' all this really says that the have been patches for 78 things. The only information we can glean (assuming the numbers are correct) is that that the number of things that have been fixed, also no info on what hasnt been fixed, or how many are outstanding.
So really MS isnt technically comparing the same things.
Please also see this comment for another shade of this, being OS patches vs app patches.
Not to be inflammatory here, isnt it quite possible that those ppl who are less likely to be affected by stress are also less likely to be aware of not only all the details, but also all the consequences?
This would seem to reinforce the behavior patterns i see everyday, ppl seemingly way to wrapped up in whatever has their attention span filled that second to notice anything else that is going on around them.
"The designer also certifies that the logo does not infringe
upon the rights of any third party and that it does not
violate any copyright."
Only way to certify that is to do a copyright/trademark search. I hope you guys are gonna pony up the money to assure due diligence on your idea.
shoot him out of a torpedo tube instead.
Umm is this transformatatively any different than this?
I know (from experience) that it takes no more than five minutes to explain left- and right-clicking to a three-year-old child.
I see, so then how do you explain all of those adults that cant seem to figure out right and left clicking?
Perhaps the insinuation is that they are dumber than a 3yr old?
mmm shroud of turin ice cream!
Win9x uses HW memory protection?