"Part of the reason that Comcast is playing ball is that they were ASKED, vs. VERIZON who was given a 'writ' and a demand for customer info. Comcast has been asked to notify SPECIFIC customers of violations or potential violations. Honestly I think that is the way the system is SUPOSSED to work, and if you ARE trading in illegagl copies you SHOULD get busted."
Though I do tend to agree that if people get busted for unauthorized trading, so be it.
But I don't think that Comcast's action vs. Verizon's is based on coprorate "feelings" regarding whether they were asked nicely.
"Watching paranoid schizophrenia in action when concocting these paranoias is even more fun."
What exactly was paranoid schizophrenia? Do you actually think that major corporations don't align their efforts for mutual benefit? Perhaps I should call you a catatonic schizophrenic?
I simply pointed out that Comcast had been looking to acquire Disney -- seems pretty relevant to me.
"A tax on copyright holders (those that have an income stream from customers of those copyrighed works, at least) will simply be accounted for as a business cost and added to the price their customers pay."
Needless to say, there's already a tax on copyright holders for money that they make off their copyright -- it's called "income tax."
"There was a story yesterday about TurboLinux new distribution which includes, along with other media related things, a copy of PowerDVD. I'm not sure if it is actually availible for purchase, but it will allow licensed playing of DVDs."
So the whole thing about there being no licensed players for Linux was just not right? (or, isn't right as of the new TurboLinux)
Note that of "sharers who won't pay" they themselves suggest that "copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against 'free-loaders' "
"The GPL simply terminates your rights if you don't comply. With no valid licence to copy, as you say, you would be breaking copyright law to continue doing so."
Exactly, thanks -- and so that's why I said:
copyright is GOOD when protecting the GPL
But when it comes to music files, for some reason the same logic no longer seems to apply.
"one I know who uses those services thinks the musicians shouldn't get paid"
That's meaningless without considering how the "getting paid" bit would actually work.
Most "alternative copyright systems" propose to do it via monitoring network traffic, and that sounds like Carnivore to me.
Again, "we just want them to get paid" doesn't really mean anything unless you're exploring how that would actually work, and even with a little exploration, you'll find that the alternatives wind up compromising privacy and free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong again. If you get a federally registered copyright, you do pay ($30 from what I remember).
Though I do tend to agree that if people get busted for unauthorized trading, so be it.
But I don't think that Comcast's action vs. Verizon's is based on coprorate "feelings" regarding whether they were asked nicely.
What exactly was paranoid schizophrenia? Do you actually think that major corporations don't align their efforts for mutual benefit? Perhaps I should call you a catatonic schizophrenic?
I simply pointed out that Comcast had been looking to acquire Disney -- seems pretty relevant to me.
It's actually intereting -- given Verizon's victories, why would Comcast play DMCA ball for MGM?
Could it have anything to do with Comcast's (recently abandoned) bid for Disney? And Disney-MGM Studios?
Playing megamedia connect-the-dots is fun!
Perhaps when somebody eavesdrops, a cat is killed?
Or does the universe split in two, one in which the eavesdrop has occured, and one in which it has not?
What's the sensible part?
That filesharers will "voluntarily" pay?
- OR -
That the record industry will "voluntarily" license for p2p?
Well what's your point?
Are you suggesting that companies that hide income from income tax wouldn't also hide it from an additional "made money from copyrighted work" tax?
(P.S., plenty of individuals cheat -- or, I should say, "get creative" -- on their taxes too.)
And none of this has anything to do with my point: that copyright holders who make money ALREADY pay a tax.
Needless to say, there's already a tax on copyright holders for money that they make off their copyright -- it's called "income tax."
It's kinda funny -- when the RIAA wants a tax to pay off the RIAA, it's a BAD thing. When the EFF wants a tax to pay off the RIAA, it's a GOOD thing.
Often a letter (even a friendly one) can help.
Also, note that federally registered copyrights award legal fees (as opposed to 'defacto' copyrights).
OR, the more you consume copyrighted works, the more you should pay, no?
No wonder I'm'a Googlin'
Too bad, I was hoping for a better boy/girl ratio in the pics. I wanted to see Swedish lady hax0rs waving the phreak flag. Will we never win?
Spot on, man!
fwiw, I've stared to try and come up with something new. And here's who I am.
Blah.
Rating schmating, who cares about that?
Ok then, buckaroo. What was bogus? There is indeed a huge amount of illogical hypocrisy when it comes to copyright arguments.
What's your position? That unrestricted unauthorized file-sharing is just ok?
Just because people don't like the RIAA doesn't make Kazaa good.
Also a lot of fun was the History of Science Museum in Florence.
Kazaa is such an reputable organization! How can this be possible?
So this isn't about the unavailablity of licensed players, but rather just an unwillingness by vendors to pay for a license?
So the whole thing about there being no licensed players for Linux was just not right? (or, isn't right as of the new TurboLinux)
One line of questioning revolved around the lack of a licensed Linux player -- well why isn't there one?
Has anybody tried to get a license?
Is it that everybody to tries also wants to publish under GPL, and the license won't be granted for that?
Not even the EFF is suggesting that -- here's what they suggest.
Note that of "sharers who won't pay" they themselves suggest that "copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against 'free-loaders' "
Heh, I would have thought you'd prefer a Double Muff!
Exactly, thanks -- and so that's why I said:
copyright is GOOD when protecting the GPL
But when it comes to music files, for some reason the same logic no longer seems to apply.
That's meaningless without considering how the "getting paid" bit would actually work.
Most "alternative copyright systems" propose to do it via monitoring network traffic, and that sounds like Carnivore to me.
Again, "we just want them to get paid" doesn't really mean anything unless you're exploring how that would actually work, and even with a little exploration, you'll find that the alternatives wind up compromising privacy and free speech.