Yes, but that is why musicians have agents - a person paid specifically to do the ass kissing and running about for them. They need to ensure that the agents get paid out of what is left for the artists, not total gross, and remind them that 15% of nothing, is nothing.
The musicians should be practicing and writing - to be able to create the music that we want. The manager/agent should be driving the business side of things to generate revenue and profit for the band. If it's a case of needing to selling the music, they should hire sales people, on commission, the way every other business does.
They would be spending their time working out how to support it, and what the risk is, same as any other project. For the money they save on the software, they will probably have to hire someone with dedicated skills to support it. Probably two people (in case one is sick/on vacation). And that is a recuring expense...
If someone can put a dollar figure on how much it cost them to receive the mail - then potentially, since this was not paid by the candidate it could be considered a donation - and what type of donation is it? Since each candidate has to account for every donation this would be a logistical nightmare.
Are political donations tax deductible - it would be nice to claim a tax break to cover received spam...
Your choice of the bible as a reliable reference reminds me of something appropriate to the main post. Jenkins should have immediately got on the case of the mother for letting her child play a mature game - but he was not ready for the "debate".
What you reminded me of is a web site I saw coving debating with creationists. The creationists spend all their time destroying arguments for evolution, because they know that their own position (that the bible is literally correct in every way) is extremely weak (no proof of noah's flood, fossils older than 5000 BC - important as they advertise creationist "science"). And like the chat show, they ensure that the audience is stacked in favour of the creationist (the audience already believe and want their belief reaffirmed by this "scientist" being preached into the ground).
The advice given on the website is two fold - first off, don't get sucked into doing this as it will be heavily slated against you. Secondly, if you do get involved, research and prepare - don't get snared into defending your general field of expertise (you won't have time), force the debate back to the relevant points.
Your mother in the show is blaming GTA3 due to her own shortcomings as a parent - the question should have been "why did parents allow their children to look at mature subject matter"? The subject matter is blatently marked as not for kids, so any examples of kids violence being used as an argument to ban the material is invalid.
Oh, I see. Looking at it from the distributors' view totally invalidates the "they only put the region coding in to exploit regional markets" argument. Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
Yes, if I'm looking to sell goods, I want to be the only game in town - because then I can charge the maximum that the market will sustain... the word you were looking for to describe what you wanted was "monopoly".
Prior to this people said - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Well, people didn't buy it, and bought the region free players instead. The world just isn't as big as it used to be, and customers now look *everywhere* for the best deal.
And I'm sure the Russians feel the same way about non-Russian FBI agents who break into Russian PCs without a warrent. When it's "they are not US citizens, so we can treat them how we like" - that's OK. But in this case it's "the FBI agent is not a Russian so we can treat him how we like" and suddenly, that's not right.
The fifth amendment mentions "person" not "citizen" and includes the phrase "due process of law".
Back to the story in question - this sounds like the Feds overstepped the mark in gathering evidence. We have rules of evidence for a reason, and if they arn't followed, saying the accused is a foreigner so it doesn't matter hardly sounds like, shall we say, the American Way - it would be condemned if it happened to a US citizen abroad.
IANAL, but employee non-competes (you can't go work for a competitor) are unenforcible in some states, and customer non-competes (you can't hire any of our people) are unenforcible in some states.
But where they *are* enforcible, they are very legal... up to the point where they take away your livelihood. If your job is as a (take general computing skill you specialise in) C++ programmer, and the contract says you can't program C++ for anyone for the next X years, this is not going to hold up. The decision handed out is likely to balance between the skills you need to get similar (as in profession, not compensation) employment, against whether the knowledge is specific to the companies livelihood (you can't give away the good stuff that makes the company different from their competitors).
Note that customer competes are much harder to contest, as there is the issue of goodwill between your current company and the customer to consider - many will back away regardless.
The problem is the way royalties are collected in the US. The collection companies (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) collect royalties based on the industry standard - which includes music "owned" by the major labels. If you don't pay, the onus is on you to prove that for every track you've ever played, you have the copyright owner's (artist/label and songwriters/label) consent.
You have to prove this in court, because the RIAA will go after you with the finest lawyers in the industry. All together now...
"This is Chewbacca..."
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/ mu sic_law/calculation_royalties.htm
I don't think they are - if the product was provided for free, in good faith, with no prior knowledge that the product would cause said fire, then it would be very difficult to sue them - you don't have a contract/sale to tie them in for liability. You could only go after them for malicious damage at this point. Negligence at this point can only really be considered for the owner/user.
It's potentially uniform state law. Two state have enacted it, and several have anti-UCITA statutes. So for the several states that have been enforcing them there seem to be an equal number against them. The whole issue with UCITA is shrink wrap versus first sale - and the jury is still out across most of the country.
With the existing UCITA, there's nothing to stop a vendor claiming your first born, let alone your right to complain - if we have to enumerate what they can't claim as part of their shrink wrap the law will never be as we'll still be writing the exclusions come doomsday. This is why the constitution/ammendments defines what the govenment can do, not what it can't. So yes, not allowing criticizing the vendor is finally the right thing to do, but given the way this is playing out, there will always be another.
Why the hell not - it seems the ideal. Ability to stay on the equator due to winds etc, the equator should be the goal, not explained away with the words "obviously not"...
UCITA cannot be "got right", because it's fundamentally flawed. The whole principal - you buy something, and then you get to read the contract you are now "legally" bound by, just isn't acceptable. And what is more, there is no current provision in UCITA to prevent the vendor changing the terms of the contract, after the sale, unilaterally.
If you buy a book (a real, made of paper, honest to goodness book), it states what rights you have regarding ownership of the book and the copy of the contents of the book. Nothing else. Why is that? It's because you bought the book - you paid in advance (one time payment), for goods received. You didn't sign a contract licensing you the non-transferable use of the book; and guess what - you didn't with the software you bought at the store either.
I like the quote from the UCITA guy McCabe about the supporters getting what they wanted. Will someone please hit him with a clue stick - what they wanted is something no one else is allowed to have, and for good reasons. If someone told me I could sell stuff to people, and make up the terms of the sale/contract afterwards, I'd want it too.
It should be made illegal (felony) for a elected representative to present a bill or amendment that breaches the constitution, except where said bill/amendment makes it clear that specific constitutional rights (no catch all caveats allowed) may be being taken away.
Furthermore, no bill/amendment containing potential constitutional right removals should be fast tracked to avoid timely public debate or scrutiny.
Easily proved (the moment SCOTUS overturns bill/amendment). Sentence of disbarment from public office, and five years sounds about right...
It was forwarded to be signed by the president (a democrat) after being approved by both houses (republican controlled at the time).
Will people stop blaming one president or party over another. The law was passed by the government - over the years, this is a gestalt entity of both parties...
The only reason you assign blame for something is because someone is going to be punished because of it. Assigning blame so you can go "Nya nya nya - it was you!" is childish, stupid, and doesn't achieve anything.
Now let's get back to the MPAA explaining why Bruce can't watch DVDs he bought on holiday in the UK when he got back to the states...
Now you're getting it. And this may well be why a well known and respected member of the computing world is going to break the law openly, inviting just such a case.
This is not really any different from the magazine Polo (www.polomagazine.com) being sued for trademark dilution. Polo magazine reported on the sport of "Polo". Hmmmm. Build brand based off the perceived essence of the sport, then sue parts of sport for infringing "your" trademark!
I don't see anyone sueing the UK mint brand "Polo" - I guess someone realised that Nestle have some kick ass lawyers.
I guess someone needs to create a product called "american" or "usa" and see if they can evict everyone using those words in their website name.
So you'll have to send them the original, which they will now own (these shows always claim the rights to things you send them), and now you can't even make a copy of your own video!
Incidentally, your "if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby" is almost spot on, in the same way that zero is obviously not a number.
Royalties/Manufacturers/Work For Hire/Fair Use
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
1. I think we need to have royalties set to a specific percentage of cost by the government. No copyright holder can deny use of the work and claim copyright protection. Owners of a copyright who also manufacture the work, must include royalty in their pricing.
That's the issue we are seeing now - a copyright/patent is basically a monopoly to use, because the holder will never agree on fair licensing if they are also a manufacturer.
2. No copyright owner or manufacturer should be allowed to enter into "exclusive" deals/contracts. In return for guaranteed protected profit royalties, you can't tout for additional monies - all manufacturers get the same treatment.
No monopoly on copyright/patents.
3. Work for hire is only accepted when the work is generated by a salaried employee, and generated while hired, during working hours, on company equipment.
If the work existed prior to the hiring, the rights do not become the employers. This basically covers the status quo for software and for movies (Hanks gets $4m per month salary instead of a big $20m cheque).
4. Fair use is pretty much as it is now. Derivative works, parody et. al. as current status quo.
5. Length of patent is a fun one - two choices. Cost limit - patent is held until research costs plus a percentage, is made through royalties. Time limit as a second option, being five years (no exceptions).
This generally means that if you have to invest a fortune, you can guarantee it back with a profit. Alternatively, if you think you can make a bigger return in five years, then start the clock.
Re:Faster into Public Domain
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
You don't really buy just the music though, do you? You buy the media first, so that you can buy the music second.
Therefore, if the copyright expired, people could compete to sell you the music on the media of your choice. There's still an incentive to make money, but not a license to print money!
What we really need is the artist keeping copyright and having a copyright fee mandated by government for each copy sold. Then all the publishers would be able to sell the media/music. We get a competative market, the artists get paid. The RIAA members have to work for a living.
These deaths are only occuring because the drugs are illegal, not because of the effects of the drug itself. By your very argument, the government could legalise drugs, AND SAVE LIVES!
Slashdot Mirror
And in fact, in some cases the CD with the soundtrack of a movie, costs more than the DVD of the same movie ...
Yes, but that is why musicians have agents - a person paid specifically to do the ass kissing and running about for them. They need to ensure that the agents get paid out of what is left for the artists, not total gross, and remind them that 15% of nothing, is nothing.
The musicians should be practicing and writing - to be able to create the music that we want. The manager/agent should be driving the business side of things to generate revenue and profit for the band. If it's a case of needing to selling the music, they should hire sales people, on commission, the way every other business does.
They would be spending their time working out how to support it, and what the risk is, same as any other project. For the money they save on the software, they will probably have to hire someone with dedicated skills to support it. Probably two people (in case one is sick/on vacation). And that is a recuring expense ...
If someone can put a dollar figure on how much it cost them to receive the mail - then potentially, since this was not paid by the candidate it could be considered a donation - and what type of donation is it? Since each candidate has to account for every donation this would be a logistical nightmare.
...
Are political donations tax deductible - it would be nice to claim a tax break to cover received spam
Your choice of the bible as a reliable reference reminds me of something appropriate to the main post. Jenkins should have immediately got on the case of the mother for letting her child play a mature game - but he was not ready for the "debate".
What you reminded me of is a web site I saw coving debating with creationists. The creationists spend all their time destroying arguments for evolution, because they know that their own position (that the bible is literally correct in every way) is extremely weak (no proof of noah's flood, fossils older than 5000 BC - important as they advertise creationist "science"). And like the chat show, they ensure that the audience is stacked in favour of the creationist (the audience already believe and want their belief reaffirmed by this "scientist" being preached into the ground).
The advice given on the website is two fold - first off, don't get sucked into doing this as it will be heavily slated against you. Secondly, if you do get involved, research and prepare - don't get snared into defending your general field of expertise (you won't have time), force the debate back to the relevant points.
Your mother in the show is blaming GTA3 due to her own shortcomings as a parent - the question should have been "why did parents allow their children to look at mature subject matter"? The subject matter is blatently marked as not for kids, so any examples of kids violence being used as an argument to ban the material is invalid.
Oh, I see. Looking at it from the distributors' view totally invalidates the "they only put the region coding in to exploit regional markets" argument. Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
... the word you were looking for to describe what you wanted was "monopoly".
Yes, if I'm looking to sell goods, I want to be the only game in town - because then I can charge the maximum that the market will sustain
Prior to this people said - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Well, people didn't buy it, and bought the region free players instead. The world just isn't as big as it used to be, and customers now look *everywhere* for the best deal.
And I'm sure the Russians feel the same way about non-Russian FBI agents who break into Russian PCs without a warrent. When it's "they are not US citizens, so we can treat them how we like" - that's OK. But in this case it's "the FBI agent is not a Russian so we can treat him how we like" and suddenly, that's not right.
The fifth amendment mentions "person" not "citizen" and includes the phrase "due process of law".
Back to the story in question - this sounds like the Feds overstepped the mark in gathering evidence. We have rules of evidence for a reason, and if they arn't followed, saying the accused is a foreigner so it doesn't matter hardly sounds like, shall we say, the American Way - it would be condemned if it happened to a US citizen abroad.
IANAL, but employee non-competes (you can't go work for a competitor) are unenforcible in some states, and customer non-competes (you can't hire any of our people) are unenforcible in some states.
... up to the point where they take away your livelihood. If your job is as a (take general computing skill you specialise in) C++ programmer, and the contract says you can't program C++ for anyone for the next X years, this is not going to hold up. The decision handed out is likely to balance between the skills you need to get similar (as in profession, not compensation) employment, against whether the knowledge is specific to the companies livelihood (you can't give away the good stuff that makes the company different from their competitors).
But where they *are* enforcible, they are very legal
Note that customer competes are much harder to contest, as there is the issue of goodwill between your current company and the customer to consider - many will back away regardless.
Uh, no, they don't. Their customers pay Microsoft's taxes, because like every business in existance, part of the cost of what they sell is "overhead".
If corporate taxes go up - oh look, all the companies have raised their prices to cope with the new taxes.
The problem is the way royalties are collected in the US. The collection companies (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) collect royalties based on the industry standard - which includes music "owned" by the major labels. If you don't pay, the onus is on you to prove that for every track you've ever played, you have the copyright owner's (artist/label and songwriters/label) consent.
...
..."
/ mu sic_law/calculation_royalties.htm
You have to prove this in court, because the RIAA will go after you with the finest lawyers in the industry. All together now
"This is Chewbacca
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property
"No product, no consumers" - hey, it's not like they give their movies to the cable stations. If they don't want the money ...
I'll put my money on one of the film companies breaking ranks for a better deal. And probably the smallest of them!
And treat it like hacking - a restraining order similar to Mitnicks - can't touch a computer for several years.
Seriously, all they should have done was expand the illegal FAX law, and increase the fines (and index link the fines so they go up year by year).
Obligatory IANAL.
I don't think they are - if the product was provided for free, in good faith, with no prior knowledge that the product would cause said fire, then it would be very difficult to sue them - you don't have a contract/sale to tie them in for liability. You could only go after them for malicious damage at this point. Negligence at this point can only really be considered for the owner/user.
It's potentially uniform state law. Two state have enacted it, and several have anti-UCITA statutes. So for the several states that have been enforcing them there seem to be an equal number against them. The whole issue with UCITA is shrink wrap versus first sale - and the jury is still out across most of the country.
With the existing UCITA, there's nothing to stop a vendor claiming your first born, let alone your right to complain - if we have to enumerate what they can't claim as part of their shrink wrap the law will never be as we'll still be writing the exclusions come doomsday. This is why the constitution/ammendments defines what the govenment can do, not what it can't. So yes, not allowing criticizing the vendor is finally the right thing to do, but given the way this is playing out, there will always be another.
"Obviously we can't go around the equator"
...
Why the hell not - it seems the ideal. Ability to stay on the equator due to winds etc, the equator should be the goal, not explained away with the words "obviously not"
Now you can sign up (and pay) for the right to view (if you own one of our players) one of our copies of our movie MiB.
UCITA cannot be "got right", because it's fundamentally flawed. The whole principal - you buy something, and then you get to read the contract you are now "legally" bound by, just isn't acceptable. And what is more, there is no current provision in UCITA to prevent the vendor changing the terms of the contract, after the sale, unilaterally.
If you buy a book (a real, made of paper, honest to goodness book), it states what rights you have regarding ownership of the book and the copy of the contents of the book. Nothing else. Why is that? It's because you bought the book - you paid in advance (one time payment), for goods received. You didn't sign a contract licensing you the non-transferable use of the book; and guess what - you didn't with the software you bought at the store either.
I like the quote from the UCITA guy McCabe about the supporters getting what they wanted. Will someone please hit him with a clue stick - what they wanted is something no one else is allowed to have, and for good reasons. If someone told me I could sell stuff to people, and make up the terms of the sale/contract afterwards, I'd want it too.
It should be made illegal (felony) for a elected representative to present a bill or amendment that breaches the constitution, except where said bill/amendment makes it clear that specific constitutional rights (no catch all caveats allowed) may be being taken away.
...
Furthermore, no bill/amendment containing potential constitutional right removals should be fast tracked to avoid timely public debate or scrutiny.
Easily proved (the moment SCOTUS overturns bill/amendment). Sentence of disbarment from public office, and five years sounds about right
It was forwarded to be signed by the president (a democrat) after being approved by both houses (republican controlled at the time).
...
...
Will people stop blaming one president or party over another. The law was passed by the government - over the years, this is a gestalt entity of both parties
The only reason you assign blame for something is because someone is going to be punished because of it. Assigning blame so you can go "Nya nya nya - it was you!" is childish, stupid, and doesn't achieve anything.
Now let's get back to the MPAA explaining why Bruce can't watch DVDs he bought on holiday in the UK when he got back to the states
Now you're getting it. And this may well be why a well known and respected member of the computing world is going to break the law openly, inviting just such a case.
Go Bruce!
This is not really any different from the magazine Polo (www.polomagazine.com) being sued for trademark dilution. Polo magazine reported on the sport of "Polo". Hmmmm. Build brand based off the perceived essence of the sport, then sue parts of sport for infringing "your" trademark!
I don't see anyone sueing the UK mint brand "Polo" - I guess someone realised that Nestle have some kick ass lawyers.
I guess someone needs to create a product called "american" or "usa" and see if they can evict everyone using those words in their website name.
So you'll have to send them the original, which they will now own (these shows always claim the rights to things you send them), and now you can't even make a copy of your own video!
Incidentally, your "if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby" is almost spot on, in the same way that zero is obviously not a number.
1. I think we need to have royalties set to a specific percentage of cost by the government. No copyright holder can deny use of the work and claim copyright protection. Owners of a copyright who also manufacture the work, must include royalty in their pricing.
That's the issue we are seeing now - a copyright/patent is basically a monopoly to use, because the holder will never agree on fair licensing if they are also a manufacturer.
2. No copyright owner or manufacturer should be allowed to enter into "exclusive" deals/contracts. In return for guaranteed protected profit royalties, you can't tout for additional monies - all manufacturers get the same treatment.
No monopoly on copyright/patents.
3. Work for hire is only accepted when the work is generated by a salaried employee, and generated while hired, during working hours, on company equipment.
If the work existed prior to the hiring, the rights do not become the employers. This basically covers the status quo for software and for movies (Hanks gets $4m per month salary instead of a big $20m cheque).
4. Fair use is pretty much as it is now. Derivative works, parody et. al. as current status quo.
5. Length of patent is a fun one - two choices. Cost limit - patent is held until research costs plus a percentage, is made through royalties. Time limit as a second option, being five years (no exceptions).
This generally means that if you have to invest a fortune, you can guarantee it back with a profit. Alternatively, if you think you can make a bigger return in five years, then start the clock.
You don't really buy just the music though, do you? You buy the media first, so that you can buy the music second.
Therefore, if the copyright expired, people could compete to sell you the music on the media of your choice. There's still an incentive to make money, but not a license to print money!
What we really need is the artist keeping copyright and having a copyright fee mandated by government for each copy sold. Then all the publishers would be able to sell the media/music. We get a competative market, the artists get paid. The RIAA members have to work for a living.
/jumps on your soapbox
These deaths are only occuring because the drugs are illegal, not because of the effects of the drug itself. By your very argument, the government could legalise drugs, AND SAVE LIVES!
/takes soap box, for use in storing soap