That's a really interesting situation. We believe that once we pay for something, we own it. We believe that we can now leave the item in our house, and believe it will stay there, protected by property laws.
They believe that as long as they have control over the item they sold us, it remains their property. So, they removed text to speech and removed a book.
If it was a purely physical item being modified and not functionality and content, the laws would be very explicitly on the owner side. This case involving "just" functionality and "just" content, the consumers were not enraged... well, not enraged enough.
IP laws have been extremely aggressive and rigorous towards individuals, protecting the "property" and "profit" of corporations. Don't seem to be working the other way around, though.
It is inspiring to see someone seeing this and taking action.
For example from the German traffic law: "whoever wishes to turn must make their intention clearly and in a timely manner, using the vehicle indicators".
In Southern California it's more like "whoever wishes to turn must do so without warning and in a surprising manner. Vehicle indicators may be on or off throughout the duration of the trip, depending on the driver's mood. Using turn signals before turning indicates a non-LA driver or a non-hip, uncool one. Pussy!"
Not if the government decrees and installs mandatory censorship backdoor software/hardware on every communication device sold. Passing laws for that to happen in the name of the children or the security or freedom is easier than we think. It will probably be called Free Speech Protection or something similar.
Then, even though communication around it will be theoretically possible, the threshold will be high enough from technical standpoint and if tampering with the device is punishable with harsh enough measures, then few enough people will make efforts to go around it, which is few enough from the governing entity's standpoint.
Possible future solutions are being beta tested in places like UAE, China, Korea, and now Iran.
And speaking of bright minds, history shows that oppressive governments never mind putting a bullet through one.
What if, as powerful creators using our imagination, we have the capacity to determine God's existence in our own reality?
So, for some of us, the universe really contains entities and deities that run our lives. For others, the universe is being run by the total sum of... the universe. Chaos theory. Unknown sum of undiscovered yet laws of physics, matter, time, math too complex for us apes to figure out. Some of it's patterns may be interpreted as beings by our brains wired for faces, tigers, spiders and boobies. Some may feel like love and warmth. Knowledge in this field takes personal exploration and may result in personal, unique discoveries.
Bottom line is, others live in worlds that are not 100% like our own. Let's have the courage to respect this.
Some of us are indoctrinated very young into believing others' beliefs, without proof. That creates a lot of tension and suffering as they now have to protect the reality that was forced onto them, or face the deep trauma of being robbed of their own personal discovery of their own divinity.
Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith."
And keep in mind that "faith" is something people are indoctrinated, brainwashed into as infants, using rewards, punishment, lies and often cruelty.
"God is in the sky, watching you." "Where, mommy?" "You can not see it." "How do I know it's there." "Because I say so." "Do you see it?" "No, but I know it's there." "How do you know?" "My mom told me."
If you are a Christian, ask yourself, what would you believe in if you were born in a small village in Afghanistan? India? China? Japan?
Religion is simply a social construct that provides a community with a reason to be altruistic
Religion is also a social construct that provides a community with a reason to indoctrinate human children without giving them any choice, installing a middle man between them and their own sense of divinity, to sell "God" in exchange of obedience, control and cash. Using the concept of God for obedience training (for life) is cruel and inhumane.
Currently what most people believe is chosen for them and depends on what zone of religious influence they were born.
When choice of religion happens independent of parents' religious practices and at voting age, then maybe we can say religion is a choice. Until then, it's indoctrination and brainwashing of infants with the goal of control.
There are spiritual practices that aim at enlightenment and altruism. Religious dogma is about control and ganging on "others."
There's a lot of power in being the spokesperson for the invisible entity humans are conditioned to believe they must obey. The price is the perversion and tainting of our natural pure relationship with our own divinity (initially by saying it comes from the outside, does not belong to us, and then taking it from there).
Exactly. And, the fear is necessary because we instinctively know that we are being made to pay perpetually for things that are free, in the name of infinite greed. "Supporting the musicians" argument is simply not true. We are dealing with a rabid monster with insatiable hunger that has taken the position of a middle man between artists and the public and leeches on both.
For an example of the kind of monster, see Spirited Away.
Allowing such entities to dictate our laws, lives, relationship with art and artists is devastating to our culture and well-being. Trying to appease them is futile and dangerous.
All of the above still does not bring the cost of one song to $80k.
If the judge wanted to punish her for the way she behaved during the lawsuit, that would've been a separate item on the ruling.
Where's the proof that each song was downloaded by 160k people who were standing by with cash in hand ready to buy it from iTunes and downloaded it instead?
Or, we are looking at a business model where RIAA can sue for unlimited damages. How convenient. If I break my leg on mall property can I sue them for my imaginary careers as a ballet dancer *and* NBA player which I have not started yet?
Of course secrecy is attractive to bad guys. Problem is according to current legislation we are all bad guys, always crossing some obscure irrelevant law we don't know about.
So one man's secrecy is another man's privacy and protection from overreaching criminalization.
Oh, and anything you write or view on the internet, say over the phone, purchase, sms about, dial on your phone, etc. is saved and archived forever, by default, unless you make a special effort to enforce your right of privacy. Even that special effort does not guarantee protection and furthermore, that effort is not difficult to notice, and boom, you are someone with something to hide, i.e. one of the bad guys.
The scanners were installed so that they can screen people who did not give consent for screening. It is only logical that people with cold symptoms who do not want their time wasted or worse, being prevented from entering the country, take measures to protect *their* investment in tickets, vacation time etc.
Or, are they actually exploiting the musicians they promote?
To simplify,/. style: Buying from UM hurts the musicians by supporting the entities who strip them of their intellectual property using contracts, procedures and practices that abuse the musicians' rights and interests.
Yes, I know it's the artists' choice to sign up for a label or not. In a world where most distribution of content, including radio and television, are controlled by the same companies that own the labels, I don't really see a lot of viable alternatives.
Music comes from the people. People want to hear music. A business that puts a toll in the way of this flow should offer some value. The value was there for a while, with manufacturing costs etc. is pretty much gone. So now the business entity muscles its way to stop this flow and wedge its business model by charging both artists and consumers of music... for what?
Just because someone wants to keep their cashflow going doesn't mean you should pay them.
Who's really stealing and from whom?
Oh, well, just a thought. Along the same lines, rainwater is taxable and collecting it from your own roof is a crime: http://is.gd/12Wg0
Let's criminalize artists performing their own art without a license from the recording labels and let's criminalize audiences listening to performances without paying a monthly fee to the record labels.
I am asking because if you had, you would be laughing like I am right now. Powerful winds tear through everything that has even the tiniest bit of slack. At ground level. Tarps rip to pieces, grommets are completely useless. Shelters fly away into the playa, women's clothes break free and take on their own. Oh, well, I am getting distracted.
TFA's description is much more vague than ones I've seen in science fiction.
Several technologies have been proposed to harvest these high altitude winds, including tethered, kite-like turbines that would be floated to the altitude of the jet streams at an altitude of 20,000-50,000 feet and transmit up to 40 megawatts of electricity to the ground via the tether.
Well, I am proposing building flying cities maintained by giant robots. We can use the high altitude, jets streams and clear skies to harvest clear solar and wind energy.
And, when a company is focusing on maximizing their profits at the cost of the quality of service provided. Thus the company does not really serve the customers any more, but its investors. When that happens, the customers become a product, and the investors become the real customer.
I am implying that at some point, greed compromises the service provider - customer relationship and takes the company's integrity away.
Do the studios really believe I need to pay every damned time I watch the movie, listen to a song, turn on the TV? And if so, WHY?
Excellent point. They do, because they really, really want it to be true. And, as masters of hype, deception, storytelling and PR, they are turning it into a truism into our culture, lobbying it into our laws, and forcing it into our lives.
Being able to buy a song from a broke artist for pennies and have the public pay you for it forever is a nice racket, wouldn't you agree?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a really interesting situation. We believe that once we pay for something, we own it. We believe that we can now leave the item in our house, and believe it will stay there, protected by property laws.
They believe that as long as they have control over the item they sold us, it remains their property. So, they removed text to speech and removed a book.
If it was a purely physical item being modified and not functionality and content, the laws would be very explicitly on the owner side. This case involving "just" functionality and "just" content, the consumers were not enraged... well, not enraged enough.
IP laws have been extremely aggressive and rigorous towards individuals, protecting the "property" and "profit" of corporations. Don't seem to be working the other way around, though.
It is inspiring to see someone seeing this and taking action.
"It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
Sit!
Fetch!
Good boy!
Also, consider the possibility of two of these deaths occurring in your immediate family. Still "productivity" first?
For example from the German traffic law: "whoever wishes to turn must make their intention clearly and in a timely manner, using the vehicle indicators".
In Southern California it's more like "whoever wishes to turn must do so without warning and in a surprising manner. Vehicle indicators may be on or off throughout the duration of the trip, depending on the driver's mood. Using turn signals before turning indicates a non-LA driver or a non-hip, uncool one. Pussy!"
Not if the government decrees and installs mandatory censorship backdoor software/hardware on every communication device sold. Passing laws for that to happen in the name of the children or the security or freedom is easier than we think. It will probably be called Free Speech Protection or something similar.
Then, even though communication around it will be theoretically possible, the threshold will be high enough from technical standpoint and if tampering with the device is punishable with harsh enough measures, then few enough people will make efforts to go around it, which is few enough from the governing entity's standpoint.
Possible future solutions are being beta tested in places like UAE, China, Korea, and now Iran.
And speaking of bright minds, history shows that oppressive governments never mind putting a bullet through one.
Oppressive regimes see their own countries' intellectual elite as an enemy.
What if, as powerful creators using our imagination, we have the capacity to determine God's existence in our own reality?
So, for some of us, the universe really contains entities and deities that run our lives. For others, the universe is being run by the total sum of ... the universe. Chaos theory. Unknown sum of undiscovered yet laws of physics, matter, time, math too complex for us apes to figure out. Some of it's patterns may be interpreted as beings by our brains wired for faces, tigers, spiders and boobies. Some may feel like love and warmth. Knowledge in this field takes personal exploration and may result in personal, unique discoveries.
Bottom line is, others live in worlds that are not 100% like our own. Let's have the courage to respect this.
Some of us are indoctrinated very young into believing others' beliefs, without proof. That creates a lot of tension and suffering as they now have to protect the reality that was forced onto them, or face the deep trauma of being robbed of their own personal discovery of their own divinity.
Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith."
And keep in mind that "faith" is something people are indoctrinated, brainwashed into as infants, using rewards, punishment, lies and often cruelty.
"God is in the sky, watching you."
"Where, mommy?"
"You can not see it."
"How do I know it's there."
"Because I say so."
"Do you see it?"
"No, but I know it's there."
"How do you know?"
"My mom told me."
If you are a Christian, ask yourself, what would you believe in if you were born in a small village in Afghanistan? India? China? Japan?
Interesting, isn't it?
Religion is simply a social construct that provides a community with a reason to be altruistic
Religion is also a social construct that provides a community with a reason to indoctrinate human children without giving them any choice, installing a middle man between them and their own sense of divinity, to sell "God" in exchange of obedience, control and cash. Using the concept of God for obedience training (for life) is cruel and inhumane.
Currently what most people believe is chosen for them and depends on what zone of religious influence they were born.
When choice of religion happens independent of parents' religious practices and at voting age, then maybe we can say religion is a choice. Until then, it's indoctrination and brainwashing of infants with the goal of control.
There are spiritual practices that aim at enlightenment and altruism. Religious dogma is about control and ganging on "others."
There's a lot of power in being the spokesperson for the invisible entity humans are conditioned to believe they must obey. The price is the perversion and tainting of our natural pure relationship with our own divinity (initially by saying it comes from the outside, does not belong to us, and then taking it from there).
Dark, dark stuff. Time to stop it.
It's not about the cans, it about the fear.
Exactly. And, the fear is necessary because we instinctively know that we are being made to pay perpetually for things that are free, in the name of infinite greed. "Supporting the musicians" argument is simply not true. We are dealing with a rabid monster with insatiable hunger that has taken the position of a middle man between artists and the public and leeches on both.
For an example of the kind of monster, see Spirited Away.
Allowing such entities to dictate our laws, lives, relationship with art and artists is devastating to our culture and well-being.
Trying to appease them is futile and dangerous.
or swap RIAA for say your grandmother
Owww, now I hate my grandmother!
Watch your Overlords as they beta test your future in 3rd world or smaller countries.
China, New Zealand, Finland, Thailand: Internet Censorship under different pretexts.
India: Biometric IDs.
Feel free to add to the list.
It would be great if you created a web page with a list of products/services to avoid.
Although, who am I kidding, I'll probably keep using Sony Vegas.
You got me at "hackers in China."
I expect the next generation of encrypted distributed or even steganography-based proxy software to come from the people who really really need it.
Creativity thrives on restriction. Exciting times!
The Chinese government is not the only one trying to censor the internet, you know. It's the first one implementing it on a such massive scale.
Your own government is watching and learning.
Have a nice day.
Actually, it fits pretty well under Circus in "Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt."
It's very simple, parent should be present at the search.
All of the above still does not bring the cost of one song to $80k.
If the judge wanted to punish her for the way she behaved during the lawsuit, that would've been a separate item on the ruling.
Where's the proof that each song was downloaded by 160k people who were standing by with cash in hand ready to buy it from iTunes and downloaded it instead?
Or, we are looking at a business model where RIAA can sue for unlimited damages. How convenient. If I break my leg on mall property can I sue them for my imaginary careers as a ballet dancer *and* NBA player which I have not started yet?
Of course secrecy is attractive to bad guys. Problem is according to current legislation we are all bad guys, always crossing some obscure irrelevant law we don't know about.
So one man's secrecy is another man's privacy and protection from overreaching criminalization.
Oh, and anything you write or view on the internet, say over the phone, purchase, sms about, dial on your phone, etc. is saved and archived forever, by default, unless you make a special effort to enforce your right of privacy. Even that special effort does not guarantee protection and furthermore, that effort is not difficult to notice, and boom, you are someone with something to hide, i.e. one of the bad guys.
War is peace. Doublegood peace.
The scanners were installed so that they can screen people who did not give consent for screening. It is only logical that people with cold symptoms who do not want their time wasted or worse, being prevented from entering the country, take measures to protect *their* investment in tickets, vacation time etc.
"protect Universal Music's intellectual property"
Did UM create the content? Really?
Or, are they actually exploiting the musicians they promote?
To simplify, /. style: Buying from UM hurts the musicians by supporting the entities who strip them of their intellectual property using contracts, procedures and practices that abuse the musicians' rights and interests.
Yes, I know it's the artists' choice to sign up for a label or not. In a world where most distribution of content, including radio and television, are controlled by the same companies that own the labels, I don't really see a lot of viable alternatives.
Music comes from the people. People want to hear music. A business that puts a toll in the way of this flow should offer some value. The value was there for a while, with manufacturing costs etc. is pretty much gone. So now the business entity muscles its way to stop this flow and wedge its business model by charging both artists and consumers of music... for what?
Just because someone wants to keep their cashflow going doesn't mean you should pay them.
Who's really stealing and from whom?
Oh, well, just a thought. Along the same lines, rainwater is taxable and collecting it from your own roof is a crime: http://is.gd/12Wg0
Let's criminalize artists performing their own art without a license from the recording labels and let's criminalize audiences listening to performances without paying a monthly fee to the record labels.
That will set things right, wouldn't it?
I am asking because if you had, you would be laughing like I am right now. Powerful winds tear through everything that has even the tiniest bit of slack. At ground level. Tarps rip to pieces, grommets are completely useless. Shelters fly away into the playa, women's clothes break free and take on their own. Oh, well, I am getting distracted.
TFA's description is much more vague than ones I've seen in science fiction.
Several technologies have been proposed to harvest these high altitude winds, including tethered, kite-like turbines that would be floated to the altitude of the jet streams at an altitude of 20,000-50,000 feet and transmit up to 40 megawatts of electricity to the ground via the tether.
Well, I am proposing building flying cities maintained by giant robots. We can use the high altitude, jets streams and clear skies to harvest clear solar and wind energy.
Here's my proof of concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_in_the_Sky
whale oil and *paved* roads have more in common: Both are unsustainable at this time.
With this passive remark you just added the U.S. to the third world, where you see the ultrarich driving their Bentleys on unmaintained roads.
Cheers!
They'll save a lot of money in the short term
You got me at "Save a lot of money," sailor!
I don't think they care about much more than that. Long term = somebody else's problem.
A part of the reason things are getting so f**ked so fast.
The definition you provide is correct.
And, when a company is focusing on maximizing their profits at the cost of the quality of service provided. Thus the company does not really serve the customers any more, but its investors. When that happens, the customers become a product, and the investors become the real customer.
I am implying that at some point, greed compromises the service provider - customer relationship and takes the company's integrity away.
Do the studios really believe I need to pay every damned time I watch the movie, listen to a song, turn on the TV? And if so, WHY?
Excellent point. They do, because they really, really want it to be true. And, as masters of hype, deception, storytelling and PR, they are turning it into a truism into our culture, lobbying it into our laws, and forcing it into our lives.
Being able to buy a song from a broke artist for pennies and have the public pay you for it forever is a nice racket, wouldn't you agree?