So Dow Chemical illegally dumps tons of toxins in a swamp 40 years ago and children are sick, but since it's a corporation, the poor owners of today aren't responsible, so it's unfair for make Dow Chemical pay for the cleanup today?
When the owners of a company are of the ilk that wants to only own the company for as long as it takes to get a quick profit, that sure makes it easy on them. Take the money and run.
No. You own the company, you're responsible. Yes, the officers of the company at the time should be charged with crimes. As far as the previous owners' liability, that's between you, the current owner, and them. You think they sold you their share fraudulently, then you sue them.
Of course, to sue them you would have to know who they are. Maybe that would necessitate a law requiring that records of ownership be kept so you would be able to have such recourse.
And then, of course, that being in place would make people more careful about the companies they buy stock in, and make people owning a company more careful about what that company does while they own it, lest they be tracked down later.
Suddenly it's not Las Vegas anymore. Suddenly a corporation is not an ATM to pump cash out of.
Suddenly owners of a company have to act like owners of a company.
Why should you, as part owner of the company, be held liable for crimes committed by the company before you owned it?
Simple. BECAUSE YOU OWN THE FUCKING COMPANY. You buy the company, you buy the liabilities.
Otherwise you're shifting the cost of the crimes of a company from those who own it to those who DON'T own it. How the fuck is that fair?
Now, if the previous owners supported such behavior and you're being stuck with the cost, you go ahead and sue them for that.
You want to treat the owning of a company like a slot machine, then you get to assume all of the TRUE risks instead of shifting them to others.
Then, something strange and unprecedented might happen. People who own a company might not decide to own it only for a month or two, or a day, or 30 seconds.
The owners of a company might take the unusual step of deciding they should learn about what the company does before buying into it. Learning what they make. Learning how they operate, what they DO, what actions they take. People might actually feel like they, as owners of the company, have a STAKE in what the company does, besides a hoped-for quick profit. They might feel a sense of personal... gosh, shall we say investment in the company they own.
Of course, that would mean they would have to devote time and energy to the company, to learning about it, to having a hand in running it, at least in the sense of voting intelligently. And that might mean they would find it necessary to own the company for years even, to get a handle on things. They might find they have to actually be responsible on some level for what the company they own does.
In short, it would have the strange, market-distorting effect of making the owners of the company act like OWNERS of a fucking COMPANY.
I realize this is a groundbreaking, alien concept. Holding the people responsible for a company responsible for that company? Insane!
Why, our very way of life would be radically altered.
I can't remember anywhere I've ever worked where you were allowed to surf the fucking internet. Some jobs obviously would require it - blogger, journalist, Corporate PR person searching out bad publicity fires to put out, etc.
But the general worker really has no reason to be browsing, period.
Yes, there are people who study these things, and who get research grants to do so. Grants that in NO WAY influence the conclusions of such research?
Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!
Whereas the few scientists who disbelieve AGW and who are under the employ of the oil industry, and the conservative commentators pushing the conspiracy theories... THEY all work for free. Not a one has a vested interest in what they're pushing, and in fact they have a stellar record of honesty and impartiality.
Not to mention that bacteria were capable of changing something as huge as the EARTH.
The reason we have our current oxygen-rich atmosphere is because of the actions of single-celled organisms billions of years ago... There were no large animals, there were just these single-celled organisms - and they drastically altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere to a far greater extent than global warming theory predicts humans are.
AGW deniers are delusional to think it's not possible. Quite often (but not always) they're also religious nutcases.
Scientists say the earth orbits the sun, they have evidence. The church says the sun orbits the earth, they have dogma (their evidence). So compromise has led us to the consensus that they both orbit each other, or rather a fixed point halfway between them.
Also, if you want to "make it big," maybe you should stop to reconsider your plans. Not only is it extremely unlikely that you WILL make it big, but frankly that's not supposed to be what it's all about. If your dream is to be Lady Gaga or the like, I frankly have no sympathy for you. Why should the system be set up to fuck the public and 98% of actual artists simply so that the occasional lucky narcissist gets a shot at the unhealthy level of adulation they crave? At the sociopathic level of riches their gluttonous appetite demands? Here's a better idea - seek mental help.
It's the same thing as with, say, football. If you're playing Pop Warner as a kid and the ONLY reason you play, the ONLY thing that will satisfy you is an eventual multi-million dollar NFL contract, then you're not only delusional about your chances, you're playing for the wrong reason.
Looks like I should do that before the price goes up.
Or, you could explain to him about the situation with helium that you wouldn't want to waste a rare, precious resourse that might be unavailable to future generations even for more important uses, should we continue to use it frivolously today.
I compose music on the piano. I'm not saying it's GOOD necessarily, but I do compose.
You know that? The idea that I OWN the music I write is insane. Just fucking insane. It's notes in someone's HEAD. Furthermore, while yes, I do work hard on composing, the reality is that composing is more a process of finding a nice combination of preexisting things. There are only so many notes, only so many chords. It's like piling up Tetris pieces.
In fact, some of the tunes I've come up with I don't bother to record because even though I have NEVER heard a song with that melody, it just seems so damned obvious that I just know that it has to have been written, or damned close to it, MANY, MANY times before.
I don't record them NOT out of fear of somehow copying someones "property" that I have no personal knowledge of its actual existence or not, but rather because I just don't like composing obvious stuff. I like to stretch.
Meanwhile, you have the music industry and some colluding "artists" claiming that they not only own a piece of music - they "own" a particular bassline, or a simple chord progression, and not just that one, but any CLOSE to it.
And then (sampling) you have people claiming they own a 5 second waveform from the midst of their recording.
Copyright was essentially an incentive program, artificial monopoly to encourage creation of things that would eventually (in 14 long years, originally!) become public domain, their natural place (the way human culture developed from the caves in the first place)
In no way is there someone who is not going to buy a CD because they say to themselves "well, I've already got a CD with that snare drum sound in it." In no way is an artist going to be discouraged from creating music merely because they think someone might take a 2 second clip and use it in a completely unrecognizable way in a completely different composition.
But that is what copyright law has devolved into. You record a song, and nobody can use that 2 second bleep for anything until 75 years after you die. because you "own that bleep!"
"First off the guy is wrong in saying that the estate "deserves" to get a share of the profits. The book in question was published in 1927 just a decade or so shy of 100 years old. You don't "deserve" to live off of "royalties" of a book that your great-grandpa made."
Not to mention the fact that in most cases of books that old, the family ISN'T getting the royalties, some corporate successor of the corporate successor of the corporate successor of the corporation who bought the rights for a pittance gets it.
And I'm sure there are cases where there IS no estate, so the publisher just keeps the money and doesn't bother to mention to anyone that there's no longer a legal copyright holder.
ICANN has managed to turn the net into a pretty much anything goes place
Good. Because it was either "anything goes," or it was "only what we say goes goes," with the "we" inevitably being someone with a different set of values or agenda than a substantial percentage of the human population.
Well, of course. It was a major change in philosophical mindset... it's PRACTICAL effect was much more limited, not the least of which because of the failings of the very same people who wrote it to implement it as they claimed they would.
I discovered this security hole years ago at our volunteer fire dept. hall. I used to call out BINGO without actually having bingo, and at least one time in ten they gave me the prize without even checking my board.
<USAcentrism>It seems that the age of consent in Sweden is 15, so they already made it legal to have sex with underage girls, those filthy bastards!</USAcentrism>
They already own many senators. That's why they're upset - they bought the DCMA, and now they found out it's not entirely what they thought they were buying.
You know, sort of like buying a CD and finding out the only song you know is the only good song on it.
The citizens will NOT revolt when the message is being stifled. The message IS being stifled, have you not been paying attention for the last several... lifetimes?
The citizens MIGHT revolt if you threatened to take away their iPhones or cancel their favorite TV show.
Slashdot Mirror
So Dow Chemical illegally dumps tons of toxins in a swamp 40 years ago and children are sick, but since it's a corporation, the poor owners of today aren't responsible, so it's unfair for make Dow Chemical pay for the cleanup today?
When the owners of a company are of the ilk that wants to only own the company for as long as it takes to get a quick profit, that sure makes it easy on them. Take the money and run.
No. You own the company, you're responsible. Yes, the officers of the company at the time should be charged with crimes.
As far as the previous owners' liability, that's between you, the current owner, and them. You think they sold you their share fraudulently, then you sue them.
Of course, to sue them you would have to know who they are. Maybe that would necessitate a law requiring that records of ownership be kept so you would be able to have such recourse.
And then, of course, that being in place would make people more careful about the companies they buy stock in, and make people owning a company more careful about what that company does while they own it, lest they be tracked down later.
Suddenly it's not Las Vegas anymore. Suddenly a corporation is not an ATM to pump cash out of.
Suddenly owners of a company have to act like owners of a company.
Well, except Apple, of course...
Why should you, as part owner of the company, be held liable for crimes committed by the company before you owned it?
Simple. BECAUSE YOU OWN THE FUCKING COMPANY.
You buy the company, you buy the liabilities.
Otherwise you're shifting the cost of the crimes of a company from those who own it to those who DON'T own it. How the fuck is that fair?
Now, if the previous owners supported such behavior and you're being stuck with the cost, you go ahead and sue them for that.
You want to treat the owning of a company like a slot machine, then you get to assume all of the TRUE risks instead of shifting them to others.
Then, something strange and unprecedented might happen. People who own a company might not decide to own it only for a month or two, or a day, or 30 seconds.
The owners of a company might take the unusual step of deciding they should learn about what the company does before buying into it. Learning what they make. Learning how they operate, what they DO, what actions they take. People might actually feel like they, as owners of the company, have a STAKE in what the company does, besides a hoped-for quick profit. They might feel a sense of personal... gosh, shall we say investment in the company they own.
Of course, that would mean they would have to devote time and energy to the company, to learning about it, to having a hand in running it, at least in the sense of voting intelligently. And that might mean they would find it necessary to own the company for years even, to get a handle on things. They might find they have to actually be responsible on some level for what the company they own does.
In short, it would have the strange, market-distorting effect of making the owners of the company act like OWNERS of a fucking COMPANY.
I realize this is a groundbreaking, alien concept. Holding the people responsible for a company responsible for that company? Insane!
Why, our very way of life would be radically altered.
I can't remember anywhere I've ever worked where you were allowed to surf the fucking internet.
Some jobs obviously would require it - blogger, journalist, Corporate PR person searching out bad publicity fires to put out, etc.
But the general worker really has no reason to be browsing, period.
You think it's tough in a game... you should try it in REAL life.
Yes, there are people who study these things, and who get research grants to do so. Grants that in NO WAY influence the conclusions of such research?
Reducing use of fossil fuels is a noble cause, but using AGW as the reason is akin to telling a teenage boy to stop what he's doing because he's gonna go blind!
Whereas the few scientists who disbelieve AGW and who are under the employ of the oil industry, and the conservative commentators pushing the conspiracy theories... THEY all work for free. Not a one has a vested interest in what they're pushing, and in fact they have a stellar record of honesty and impartiality.
Not to mention that bacteria were capable of changing something as huge as the EARTH.
The reason we have our current oxygen-rich atmosphere is because of the actions of single-celled organisms billions of years ago... There were no large animals, there were just these single-celled organisms - and they drastically altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere to a far greater extent than global warming theory predicts humans are.
AGW deniers are delusional to think it's not possible. Quite often (but not always) they're also religious nutcases.
Scientists say the earth orbits the sun, they have evidence. The church says the sun orbits the earth, they have dogma (their evidence). So compromise has led us to the consensus that they both orbit each other, or rather a fixed point halfway between them.
Also, if you want to "make it big," maybe you should stop to reconsider your plans. Not only is it extremely unlikely that you WILL make it big, but frankly that's not supposed to be what it's all about.
If your dream is to be Lady Gaga or the like, I frankly have no sympathy for you. Why should the system be set up to fuck the public and 98% of actual artists simply so that the occasional lucky narcissist gets a shot at the unhealthy level of adulation they crave? At the sociopathic level of riches their gluttonous appetite demands? Here's a better idea - seek mental help.
It's the same thing as with, say, football. If you're playing Pop Warner as a kid and the ONLY reason you play, the ONLY thing that will satisfy you is an eventual multi-million dollar NFL contract, then you're not only delusional about your chances, you're playing for the wrong reason.
...does a big-ass, you-can-see-it-from-the-highway Exxon sign use?
I'm going to patent a touch screen that flips you the bird graphically if you gesture on it with the back of your middle finger.
Looks like I should do that before the price goes up.
Or, you could explain to him about the situation with helium that you wouldn't want to waste a rare, precious resourse that might be unavailable to future generations even for more important uses, should we continue to use it frivolously today.
Even if they didn't use that, they would use the old standby "disturbing the peace."
Why, you caused a ruckus, didn't you? "disturbing the peace!!"
Often translated to "pissed off a cop."
I compose music on the piano. I'm not saying it's GOOD necessarily, but I do compose.
You know that? The idea that I OWN the music I write is insane. Just fucking insane. It's notes in someone's HEAD. Furthermore, while yes, I do work hard on composing, the reality is that composing is more a process of finding a nice combination of preexisting things. There are only so many notes, only so many chords. It's like piling up Tetris pieces.
In fact, some of the tunes I've come up with I don't bother to record because even though I have NEVER heard a song with that melody, it just seems so damned obvious that I just know that it has to have been written, or damned close to it, MANY, MANY times before.
I don't record them NOT out of fear of somehow copying someones "property" that I have no personal knowledge of its actual existence or not, but rather because I just don't like composing obvious stuff. I like to stretch.
Meanwhile, you have the music industry and some colluding "artists" claiming that they not only own a piece of music - they "own" a particular bassline, or a simple chord progression, and not just that one, but any CLOSE to it.
And then (sampling) you have people claiming they own a 5 second waveform from the midst of their recording.
Copyright was essentially an incentive program, artificial monopoly to encourage creation of things that would eventually (in 14 long years, originally!) become public domain, their natural place (the way human culture developed from the caves in the first place)
In no way is there someone who is not going to buy a CD because they say to themselves "well, I've already got a CD with that snare drum sound in it."
In no way is an artist going to be discouraged from creating music merely because they think someone might take a 2 second clip and use it in a completely unrecognizable way in a completely different composition.
But that is what copyright law has devolved into. You record a song, and nobody can use that 2 second bleep for anything until 75 years after you die. because you "own that bleep!"
THAT is INSANE.
"First off the guy is wrong in saying that the estate "deserves" to get a share of the profits. The book in question was published in 1927 just a decade or so shy of 100 years old. You don't "deserve" to live off of "royalties" of a book that your great-grandpa made."
Not to mention the fact that in most cases of books that old, the family ISN'T getting the royalties, some corporate successor of the corporate successor of the corporate successor of the corporation who bought the rights for a pittance gets it.
And I'm sure there are cases where there IS no estate, so the publisher just keeps the money and doesn't bother to mention to anyone that there's no longer a legal copyright holder.
ICANN has managed to turn the net into a pretty much anything goes place
Good. Because it was either "anything goes," or it was "only what we say goes goes," with the "we" inevitably being someone with a different set of values or agenda than a substantial percentage of the human population.
Well, of course. It was a major change in philosophical mindset... it's PRACTICAL effect was much more limited, not the least of which because of the failings of the very same people who wrote it to implement it as they claimed they would.
Well, I was going to say that with the Declaration, Jefferson DID change subjects into citizens, and I'm not talking about word replacement.
ok, nevermind, misread the post. Dont you hate when a lame joke is rendered even more embarrassing through illiteracy?
I discovered this security hole years ago at our volunteer fire dept. hall.
I used to call out BINGO without actually having bingo, and at least one time in ten they gave me the prize without even checking my board.
<USAcentrism>It seems that the age of consent in Sweden is 15, so they already made it legal to have sex with underage girls, those filthy bastards!</USAcentrism>
...the MAFIAA takes over the United States Congress...
wrong tense.
They already own many senators. That's why they're upset - they bought the DCMA, and now they found out it's not entirely what they thought they were buying.
You know, sort of like buying a CD and finding out the only song you know is the only good song on it.
When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life. If the RIAA CEO died, he would simply be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate.
Ok, that's funny. Devalue human life. Carbon-copy duplicate. Ha. Look what you did there.
The citizens will NOT revolt when the message is being stifled. The message IS being stifled, have you not been paying attention for the last several... lifetimes?
The citizens MIGHT revolt if you threatened to take away their iPhones or cancel their favorite TV show.