No, you're not. I have the cheapest-of-the-cheap phone I could get, and a pre-paid plan with minutes that are good for a year. I pay about $100-$150 or so per year (depending on how many minutes I use) and really have no need for texting or any other extra features.
I'm no fan of censorship, but I am a big proponent of the rights of individuals and organizations to exclude whom ever they desire from their homes and organizations.
Which is why I ditched Sam's Club when they started allowing the Scientologists to recruit people on their property. They certainly have the right to let anyone they want to do whatever they want in their stores, and I have an equal right to refuse to patronize them, and also a right to let other people know of their apparent support for the organization.
in other words.. if you're a dominant media outlet/name brand retailer/employer/etc in a region you are subject to the same bill of rights the government must adhere to.
Probably not a bad idea - companies that get that big generally don't do it without some sort of governmental assistance (corporate charter, radio licenses, tax breaks, etc.).
Humans have rights, so a group of humans working together has the same rights.
But when organized as a corporation, this "group of humans working together" doesn't have anything resembling the accountability that a real person would. Pray tell, when was the last time you saw a corporation get its charter yanked or its business licenses revoked for defrauding people out of billions of dollars, when it's common for an individual to go to jail for years for stealing a used car that might be worth $1000?
I absolutely agree 100%, and I say that as a religious person. It just doesn't make economic sense to absolve an organization of their tax liabilities just because they're religious in nature, and I totally fail to see how holding religions accountable for common tax obligations interferes with the free practice of religion. Even charities don't get that kind of free pass.
The use of copyright and other forms of IP is novel, but there's no legal reason that Scientology can't copyright and otherwise hide its religious works.
Perhaps not, but when there's millions of dollars being made by doing so, it kind of calls into question whether or not it's a true religion vs. a for-profit corporation, and the ridiculously beneficial tax status the organization enjoys at present.
And don't forget that it pretty much eliminates whiplash and other similar neck injuries, which is why very small children should *always* be in a rear-facing car seat.
On the first visit to their center they will pressure you to buy their books and audio tapes.
Apparently you don't even have to visit their center anymore. This weekend they were set up at the exit of our local Sam's Club offering a "free stress test". Four CoS members, an equal number of E-meters, and tons of copies of "Dianetics" were present as well.
Sam's Club will be hearing from me about that. They're certainly welcome to let anyone they want peddle their wares on their property, but I'm equally welcome to not conduct business with someone that willingly gives the CoS the space and opportunity to spew their garbage.
If corporations were not held accountable as an entity in being, then lawsuits like Enron could not proceed. Your only recourse would be to file individual lawsuits against each officer. The diluted impact would give the injured little recourse and limited effects.
I agree to an extent, but the sheer cost in time and money incurred in having to defend oneself against thousands and thousands of suits might make those in charge a little more thoughtful before acting. Besides, it's not like anyone has any *real* recourse in these huge corporate implosions, so at the very least it'd be comforting to know that those criminals responsible would be suffering some inconvenience.
Really, what the 'corporate world' is doing with copyright right now hasn't changed the world, nor copyright laws, that much at all.
You missed the point of what I was saying. I don't really care about distribution methods, or the ease by which people can reproduce recordings. Neither has anything to do with what I was talking about.
What I *do* care about is that I can't legally re-record a 40-year old song without having to pay the keepers of the copyright gates. I care about the fact that I can't film an adaptation of "Space:1999" and actually put some decent writing behind the special effects. I care about the fact that I can't write and publish my own version of "Lord of the Rings", even though J.R.R. Tolkien has been dead for almost 35 years. I care about the fact that the supreme law of our land is the ONLY thing that gives creators of artistic works any monopoly at all on their use, but that said creators are not content with that and instead are supportive of perverting it into something that is detrimental to society just so they can line their pockets a bit more.
Copyright serves a valuable purpose in attempting to enrich society by ensuring that people can profit from their works for a period of time, but it takes away from society immeasurably if there are not strict and reasonable time limits placed on it. I wonder how big of a copyright supporter Disney would have been had the writings of the Brothers Grimm not been in the public domain for them to make millions from with no financial responsibility to anyone?
But why do so many Slashdotters seem to be in favor of ripping off artists, programmers, writers, directors, and so forth?
In my particular case, I don't really copy stuff to any great degree, but my purchases of movies and music are way down in large part because of the shambles of copyright law that the corporate world has made, enabled by their bought-and-paid-for representation in Congress.
Unlike the "theft" the entertainment industry (and the occasional self-righteous, annoying stuntman) is constantly whining about, every American citizen has suffered real, quantifiable theft in the form of having works of art withheld from public domain with no real expectation of them *ever* losing protection, in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of copyright. There's not a single good reason why anything recorded by the Beatles should still be under copyright, nor "The Godfather", "Jaws", "Star Wars", the original 79 episodes of "Star Trek", or any number of other works which have already made their creators unbelievably wealthy. The original 14-year copyright term was quite reasonable and would still provide an artist a reasonable period of time to realize some material benefit from his works. As it is now, it's quite possible for someone to be born, live a long natural life, and die without ever having seen a lot of works ever go out of copyright. I don't believe anyone can argue that the original intent of the Constitution's founders was the travesty we have now, and do it with a straight face.
The recording and music industries have stolen vastly more from the public through this mechanism than the "losses" they're suffering, so I don't feel the least bit sorry for them in regards to their current infringement issues.
The whole use of National Security Letters strikes me as just more confirmation that the executive branch just doesn't care about that "goddamned piece of paper", hasn't for years, and that Congress and the judiciary doesn't have the nads to keep them in line like they should.
Our government's "national security" efforts are undermining everything the country was supposed to stand for anyway.
The ISP just weasely pulls the plug without negotiation just because some guy with a British accent rings up?
I don't think that's what happened. I suspect what happened was that someone in the US government saw something they didn't like, and sent a National Security Letter or other such silliness to Verio. Verio of course can't legally disclose that, but given that Verio had been always been very forthright with John Young in the past but is being tight-lipped about the situation now, I think it's quite possible that something like this is behind Verio's actions.
Gotta love living in a nation where the government makes you do their own damn police work against someone else against your will, and then threatens you with jail if you say anything about it.
You've never had to face the option of becoming homeless to stand up for your pretty rhetoric.
It's not just "pretty rhetoric" when you're talking about an agreement that can legally bind you to something that could cost you a *lot* of money and remove any real legal recourse. I truly mean no offense or disrespect, but it's foolish to relocate for a job without knowing exactly what the terms of the contract are - I've known plenty of H1B's that have gotten snared by that, incidentally. If a potential employer doesn't want to be completely transparent in regards to the legal agreements beforehand or if they have unreasonable demands in the contract that they won't budge on, I don't contemplate working for that employer any longer. That's not being up on a mountaintop - it's just common sense and having enough respect for yourself and your abilities to not sell yourself short.
I've had to go to the mat regarding contract changes, and been told the same thing you were - "it's a company-wide contract, no exceptions". If they really want you, they'll change the document. If not, there's no shame in temporarily adjusting your standard of living and working a temp job in a warehouse or something until you find something acceptable.
After all, we are getting reimbursed for mileage and parking, that should be enough to buy food for the family while the business is shut down (and for months thereafter as people who went to your business while you were out now assume it is closed forever).
At that point, it might be worth asking the judge what the sentence for contempt of court is. If you're looking at having to take a month off for a big trial (sinking your livelihood in the process), or two days in jail for contempt, well....:-)
My family lived on Malmstrom as well, and I remember one of the coolest things was that the Sun stayed almost too bright to look at all the way down to the horizon.
It is the cost of defense that you should be concerned about.
Exactly. A patent doesn't do a bit of good when you file suit against an infringer and in response the first thing they do is drop 50 pounds of documentation on your desk. You're looking at thousands of dollars for your lawyer and his staff just to sift through it before you can do anything else, and that's just to keep the court from dismissing it out of hand. If you don't have that cash on hand, you're done.
Wasn't Montana the same place that fought the speed limit, too?
Not really "fought", and they now have had a 75 mph limit on the interstates since 1999. I totally agree with Montana's stance on the REAL ID Act, but it's probably good to remember that Custer made his last stand there too.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're not. I have the cheapest-of-the-cheap phone I could get, and a pre-paid plan with minutes that are good for a year. I pay about $100-$150 or so per year (depending on how many minutes I use) and really have no need for texting or any other extra features.
I'm no fan of censorship, but I am a big proponent of the rights of individuals and organizations to exclude whom ever they desire from their homes and organizations.
Which is why I ditched Sam's Club when they started allowing the Scientologists to recruit people on their property. They certainly have the right to let anyone they want to do whatever they want in their stores, and I have an equal right to refuse to patronize them, and also a right to let other people know of their apparent support for the organization.
The microphones are their property.
The microphones don't do the first bit of good without those FCC licenses they were given.
in other words.. if you're a dominant media outlet/name brand retailer/employer/etc in a region you are subject to the same bill of rights the government must adhere to.
Probably not a bad idea - companies that get that big generally don't do it without some sort of governmental assistance (corporate charter, radio licenses, tax breaks, etc.).
Humans have rights, so a group of humans working together has the same rights.
But when organized as a corporation, this "group of humans working together" doesn't have anything resembling the accountability that a real person would. Pray tell, when was the last time you saw a corporation get its charter yanked or its business licenses revoked for defrauding people out of billions of dollars, when it's common for an individual to go to jail for years for stealing a used car that might be worth $1000?
Not to mention that mere usage of a patented technology by an end user is still infringement, at least in the U.S.
I absolutely agree 100%, and I say that as a religious person. It just doesn't make economic sense to absolve an organization of their tax liabilities just because they're religious in nature, and I totally fail to see how holding religions accountable for common tax obligations interferes with the free practice of religion. Even charities don't get that kind of free pass.
The use of copyright and other forms of IP is novel, but there's no legal reason that Scientology can't copyright and otherwise hide its religious works.
Perhaps not, but when there's millions of dollars being made by doing so, it kind of calls into question whether or not it's a true religion vs. a for-profit corporation, and the ridiculously beneficial tax status the organization enjoys at present.
That'd make an awesome T-shirt - "Scientology helped this tomato - imagine what it could do for YOU!"
And don't forget that it pretty much eliminates whiplash and other similar neck injuries, which is why very small children should *always* be in a rear-facing car seat.
On the first visit to their center they will pressure you to buy their books and audio tapes.
Apparently you don't even have to visit their center anymore. This weekend they were set up at the exit of our local Sam's Club offering a "free stress test". Four CoS members, an equal number of E-meters, and tons of copies of "Dianetics" were present as well.
Sam's Club will be hearing from me about that. They're certainly welcome to let anyone they want peddle their wares on their property, but I'm equally welcome to not conduct business with someone that willingly gives the CoS the space and opportunity to spew their garbage.
It's not a "tin-foil hat" thing if you've been reading the news at all over the past year or so.
If corporations were not held accountable as an entity in being, then lawsuits like Enron could not proceed. Your only recourse would be to file individual lawsuits against each officer. The diluted impact would give the injured little recourse and limited effects.
I agree to an extent, but the sheer cost in time and money incurred in having to defend oneself against thousands and thousands of suits might make those in charge a little more thoughtful before acting. Besides, it's not like anyone has any *real* recourse in these huge corporate implosions, so at the very least it'd be comforting to know that those criminals responsible would be suffering some inconvenience.
It's the people who want to eat their cake and have it too that really get under my skin.
:-)
You should be modded up just for getting that saying right.
Really, what the 'corporate world' is doing with copyright right now hasn't changed the world, nor copyright laws, that much at all.
You missed the point of what I was saying. I don't really care about distribution methods, or the ease by which people can reproduce recordings. Neither has anything to do with what I was talking about.
What I *do* care about is that I can't legally re-record a 40-year old song without having to pay the keepers of the copyright gates. I care about the fact that I can't film an adaptation of "Space:1999" and actually put some decent writing behind the special effects. I care about the fact that I can't write and publish my own version of "Lord of the Rings", even though J.R.R. Tolkien has been dead for almost 35 years. I care about the fact that the supreme law of our land is the ONLY thing that gives creators of artistic works any monopoly at all on their use, but that said creators are not content with that and instead are supportive of perverting it into something that is detrimental to society just so they can line their pockets a bit more.
Copyright serves a valuable purpose in attempting to enrich society by ensuring that people can profit from their works for a period of time, but it takes away from society immeasurably if there are not strict and reasonable time limits placed on it. I wonder how big of a copyright supporter Disney would have been had the writings of the Brothers Grimm not been in the public domain for them to make millions from with no financial responsibility to anyone?
But why do so many Slashdotters seem to be in favor of ripping off artists, programmers, writers, directors, and so forth?
In my particular case, I don't really copy stuff to any great degree, but my purchases of movies and music are way down in large part because of the shambles of copyright law that the corporate world has made, enabled by their bought-and-paid-for representation in Congress.
Unlike the "theft" the entertainment industry (and the occasional self-righteous, annoying stuntman) is constantly whining about, every American citizen has suffered real, quantifiable theft in the form of having works of art withheld from public domain with no real expectation of them *ever* losing protection, in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of copyright. There's not a single good reason why anything recorded by the Beatles should still be under copyright, nor "The Godfather", "Jaws", "Star Wars", the original 79 episodes of "Star Trek", or any number of other works which have already made their creators unbelievably wealthy. The original 14-year copyright term was quite reasonable and would still provide an artist a reasonable period of time to realize some material benefit from his works. As it is now, it's quite possible for someone to be born, live a long natural life, and die without ever having seen a lot of works ever go out of copyright. I don't believe anyone can argue that the original intent of the Constitution's founders was the travesty we have now, and do it with a straight face.
The recording and music industries have stolen vastly more from the public through this mechanism than the "losses" they're suffering, so I don't feel the least bit sorry for them in regards to their current infringement issues.
The whole use of National Security Letters strikes me as just more confirmation that the executive branch just doesn't care about that "goddamned piece of paper", hasn't for years, and that Congress and the judiciary doesn't have the nads to keep them in line like they should.
Our government's "national security" efforts are undermining everything the country was supposed to stand for anyway.
The ISP just weasely pulls the plug without negotiation just because some guy with a British accent rings up?
I don't think that's what happened. I suspect what happened was that someone in the US government saw something they didn't like, and sent a National Security Letter or other such silliness to Verio. Verio of course can't legally disclose that, but given that Verio had been always been very forthright with John Young in the past but is being tight-lipped about the situation now, I think it's quite possible that something like this is behind Verio's actions.
Gotta love living in a nation where the government makes you do their own damn police work against someone else against your will, and then threatens you with jail if you say anything about it.
You've never had to face the option of becoming homeless to stand up for your pretty rhetoric.
It's not just "pretty rhetoric" when you're talking about an agreement that can legally bind you to something that could cost you a *lot* of money and remove any real legal recourse. I truly mean no offense or disrespect, but it's foolish to relocate for a job without knowing exactly what the terms of the contract are - I've known plenty of H1B's that have gotten snared by that, incidentally. If a potential employer doesn't want to be completely transparent in regards to the legal agreements beforehand or if they have unreasonable demands in the contract that they won't budge on, I don't contemplate working for that employer any longer. That's not being up on a mountaintop - it's just common sense and having enough respect for yourself and your abilities to not sell yourself short.
I've had to go to the mat regarding contract changes, and been told the same thing you were - "it's a company-wide contract, no exceptions". If they really want you, they'll change the document. If not, there's no shame in temporarily adjusting your standard of living and working a temp job in a warehouse or something until you find something acceptable.
I understand there's a hackproof encryption scheme called "ROT13" that may be useful for DRM.
They make their money by making people buy one cd for the car, one for the computer, one for the portable cd player...
And this is after you'd already bought the same album on vinyl and cassette 20 years ago.
After all, we are getting reimbursed for mileage and parking, that should be enough to buy food for the family while the business is shut down (and for months thereafter as people who went to your business while you were out now assume it is closed forever).
:-)
At that point, it might be worth asking the judge what the sentence for contempt of court is. If you're looking at having to take a month off for a big trial (sinking your livelihood in the process), or two days in jail for contempt, well....
My family lived on Malmstrom as well, and I remember one of the coolest things was that the Sun stayed almost too bright to look at all the way down to the horizon.
It is the cost of defense that you should be concerned about.
Exactly. A patent doesn't do a bit of good when you file suit against an infringer and in response the first thing they do is drop 50 pounds of documentation on your desk. You're looking at thousands of dollars for your lawyer and his staff just to sift through it before you can do anything else, and that's just to keep the court from dismissing it out of hand. If you don't have that cash on hand, you're done.
Wasn't Montana the same place that fought the speed limit, too?
Not really "fought", and they now have had a 75 mph limit on the interstates since 1999. I totally agree with Montana's stance on the REAL ID Act, but it's probably good to remember that Custer made his last stand there too.