I agree, however if the combined recording industries (RIAA) traditionally only made $0.25 per CD and file sharing cut that number to a third your statement would be true. We know that's not the case and that's why people get pissed. Companies in general don't get to the multi-billion dollar range without screwing SOMEONE over. The minority of the masses has recognized this and want to promote change within that industry (from a consumer standopint) using economic might. Since this particular industry knows that, instead of changing their business to better suit a growing digital economy, they choose to frighten, sue and jail their consumer base. Nice. Overpaid or not, there is a limit to what a "reasonable" person would pay given alternatives; legal or not. It's all in risk management. At this rate, the majority of the populace will be criminals; all over this industry's greed and access to government officials because of the consumers they've been raping. How ironic. "We're making record profits; why don't we sue someone? Congresscritters X, Y and Z are in our back pocket! It can't fail!"
I agree in concept, however the publishing industry has not confiscated public library photo copiers nor do they threaten to sue anyone with a library card so that consumers are not tempted to duplicate copyright material. Can you imagine? A federal marshall in every college campus library? Whew.....1984; HERE WE COME!!
It is law that states a former employer can not say slanderous or "bad" things against a former employee. When asked (assuming the former employee was released under the forementioned "bad" reasons), all the employer is allowed to say is "yes, he did work here from [date] to [date] and was released for (in this circumstance) violation of company policy." If there was no said company policy, he's got a case; if he didn't release the company under a contract to say these things after termination, he's got a case. Sounds win-win to me and yes, he should sue.
You just don't get it do you? Riding a motorcycle, at least for the purists, isn't about being "warm and comfy"; it's about the freedom you feel while riding, especially on an open stretch of road. Not practical but emotional none the less. Try it Mikey, you may like it.
If that's the case, then as a politician you go on public record as saying WHY you didn't endorse it and you make a public statement outside of the capitol. It's not like the media won't be there and ready to take notes.
Very true, however that particular method of "sneaking in" other proposed bills also works in reverse. Certain legislators ultimately never sign proposed legislation because of these "riders", which I think is a very good thing. It's a shame, however, that most politicians never really, truly, read the entire proposal before deciding whether or not to endorse it. Mostly it's just political favoritism.
Hell yes. Service professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc) obviously charge for THEIR services and a general rule of thumb is "you get what you pay for"; you don't go to a general practioner for heart surgery. Since all of these "professionals" now rely strictly on their PC's, I say charge what you're worth. You still get what you pay for and instead of a HMO, maybe geeks should start thinking about a CMO.....I'd subscribe.
The physical location of the fetus is EXACTLY the point; especially if it's in the womb. I'm not a woman, however if I were I don't think I'd want the government stepping in to tell me that I HAVE to give birth to the fetus; regardless of the reasoning behind it.
That is exactly why I hated contract law in college. The terms "reasonable" and "consideration" are EXTREMELY prevalent, which makes law enforcement (by a judge or third party) ambiguous at best through interpretation of the clause in question. Every Q&A (or exam for that matter) I put my head on the chopping block and questioned the "correct" response; often by citing precedence, however I was always shot down by those 2 little words. I can honestly understand why the "little man" loses in contract law negotiations....the higher paid lawyers often know the judge, who himself was once a contract lawyer. Interpretation, be damned!
The interesting aspect of your argument is that the vast majority of these exploits were already well known and secretly patched through the Windows Update function. I'm not talking about service packs here, I'm talking about gradual "critical" updates through that system. So, if the manufacturer suggests that a user utilize automatic update and they do not, whose fault would that be? If the manufacturer suggests that you at LEAST visit the update page and check the updates that YOU should install and do not, whose fault is that? Ultimately the individual or the sysadmin are responsible for the security of their machines (or so it's been said many times on this site). Reality is definitely perception and we all know what the perception of MS is on this site.
I cry foul.....I paid upwards of $20.00 for LP's not that long ago. Are you trying to tell me that CD's and manufacturing methods have made NO progress in the music industry when it comes to economics? Last I heard it costs about $.01 to physically make a recordable CD.
Well, let me ask you this bright guy: What the hell is the difference? Once you own the performance rights you own the performer. You can choose to promote the performer or destroy them; and it's all legal under today's law. THAT'S why artists should stop selling their souls.
Regardless of the T&C, people who pay for a service at any given rate are within their rights to expect that service. If I pay $40.00 per month for broadband service, then I expect broadband service; not limiting factors by the service provider because they did not think of the other users out there. If it costs more to run the service--so be it, blame the p2p people for driving up costs to the provider, but don't expect me to subscribe then either.
What the T&C SHOULD read is:
"We reserve the right to limit your access as we see fit; regardless of what you pay."
Slashdot Mirror
No, pay what the label asks you to pay. Now THAT'S yes or no.
I agree, however if the combined recording industries (RIAA) traditionally only made $0.25 per CD and file sharing cut that number to a third your statement would be true. We know that's not the case and that's why people get pissed. Companies in general don't get to the multi-billion dollar range without screwing SOMEONE over. The minority of the masses has recognized this and want to promote change within that industry (from a consumer standopint) using economic might. Since this particular industry knows that, instead of changing their business to better suit a growing digital economy, they choose to frighten, sue and jail their consumer base. Nice. Overpaid or not, there is a limit to what a "reasonable" person would pay given alternatives; legal or not. It's all in risk management. At this rate, the majority of the populace will be criminals; all over this industry's greed and access to government officials because of the consumers they've been raping. How ironic. "We're making record profits; why don't we sue someone? Congresscritters X, Y and Z are in our back pocket! It can't fail!"
I agree in concept, however the publishing industry has not confiscated public library photo copiers nor do they threaten to sue anyone with a library card so that consumers are not tempted to duplicate copyright material. Can you imagine? A federal marshall in every college campus library? Whew.....1984; HERE WE COME!!
It is law that states a former employer can not say slanderous or "bad" things against a former employee. When asked (assuming the former employee was released under the forementioned "bad" reasons), all the employer is allowed to say is "yes, he did work here from [date] to [date] and was released for (in this circumstance) violation of company policy." If there was no said company policy, he's got a case; if he didn't release the company under a contract to say these things after termination, he's got a case. Sounds win-win to me and yes, he should sue.
That would be really nice.....if I could understand German.
You just don't get it do you? Riding a motorcycle, at least for the purists, isn't about being "warm and comfy"; it's about the freedom you feel while riding, especially on an open stretch of road. Not practical but emotional none the less. Try it Mikey, you may like it.
If that's the case, then as a politician you go on public record as saying WHY you didn't endorse it and you make a public statement outside of the capitol. It's not like the media won't be there and ready to take notes.
Very true, however that particular method of "sneaking in" other proposed bills also works in reverse. Certain legislators ultimately never sign proposed legislation because of these "riders", which I think is a very good thing. It's a shame, however, that most politicians never really, truly, read the entire proposal before deciding whether or not to endorse it. Mostly it's just political favoritism.
Oh Jesus....now I'll have that song stuck in my head all night! "I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill....." Crap
Great....now we'll have to pay $0.37 for each email. I KNEW that would happen someday.
Man....and I had a good day today; thanks.
Now THAT'S the most insightful post I've read today. Thanks.
Hell yes. Service professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc) obviously charge for THEIR services and a general rule of thumb is "you get what you pay for"; you don't go to a general practioner for heart surgery. Since all of these "professionals" now rely strictly on their PC's, I say charge what you're worth. You still get what you pay for and instead of a HMO, maybe geeks should start thinking about a CMO.....I'd subscribe.
The physical location of the fetus is EXACTLY the point; especially if it's in the womb. I'm not a woman, however if I were I don't think I'd want the government stepping in to tell me that I HAVE to give birth to the fetus; regardless of the reasoning behind it.
That means you're a freak. Oh, hell with it.
Right....because managers invented this technique. NEXT.
That is exactly why I hated contract law in college. The terms "reasonable" and "consideration" are EXTREMELY prevalent, which makes law enforcement (by a judge or third party) ambiguous at best through interpretation of the clause in question. Every Q&A (or exam for that matter) I put my head on the chopping block and questioned the "correct" response; often by citing precedence, however I was always shot down by those 2 little words. I can honestly understand why the "little man" loses in contract law negotiations....the higher paid lawyers often know the judge, who himself was once a contract lawyer. Interpretation, be damned!
The interesting aspect of your argument is that the vast majority of these exploits were already well known and secretly patched through the Windows Update function. I'm not talking about service packs here, I'm talking about gradual "critical" updates through that system. So, if the manufacturer suggests that a user utilize automatic update and they do not, whose fault would that be? If the manufacturer suggests that you at LEAST visit the update page and check the updates that YOU should install and do not, whose fault is that? Ultimately the individual or the sysadmin are responsible for the security of their machines (or so it's been said many times on this site). Reality is definitely perception and we all know what the perception of MS is on this site.
I was wondering when this would turn into an anti-MS thread.....
Fuck off.....you're an asshole. The word "borrow" is seldomly used on this site. Jerk off.
Even if they only produce 1 song of 30 that you actually like? Better wait for the "Greatest Hits' version then. Idiot.
Insightful my ass.......who the hell is modding these posts?
I cry foul.....I paid upwards of $20.00 for LP's not that long ago. Are you trying to tell me that CD's and manufacturing methods have made NO progress in the music industry when it comes to economics? Last I heard it costs about $.01 to physically make a recordable CD.
Well, let me ask you this bright guy: What the hell is the difference? Once you own the performance rights you own the performer. You can choose to promote the performer or destroy them; and it's all legal under today's law. THAT'S why artists should stop selling their souls.
Regardless of the T&C, people who pay for a service at any given rate are within their rights to expect that service. If I pay $40.00 per month for broadband service, then I expect broadband service; not limiting factors by the service provider because they did not think of the other users out there. If it costs more to run the service--so be it, blame the p2p people for driving up costs to the provider, but don't expect me to subscribe then either. What the T&C SHOULD read is: "We reserve the right to limit your access as we see fit; regardless of what you pay."