Tell that to lexmark. I understand what the DMCA was trying to do but that's a shitload different from the way the DMCA is getting implemented.
Anyone who assumes that the way a law is written is the same as its implementation, or better yet, its ability to be used as a legal bludgeon, REALLY needs to get a clue.
Re:Not only that...
on
Mac OS X Hints
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
No, that was OS X Hacks, not Hints. Similar, but different (Hacks has only 100, somewhat more involved articles, to Hints 500 hints).
M'Bad. Those O'Reilly guys need more unique titles for people like me with Attention Def...hey! What's that over there!;)
They said that when the VCR came out, that TV would be dead within two years. So in 1986, I stopped watching TV, since the two years had elapsed by then, and figured why wait until the screen faded to black since that would be really sad.
So for the last 17 years, I didn't watch TV until someone told me this year, hey, TV never died, it was there all along. I was really happy, and I watched some really great shows like Jackass, but now you fuckers are telling me this TiVo shit is going to kill TV again! Fuck!
Well, I'm not waiting around for the end. I'm giving up TV. I just think it's shitty that people are always talking about some box killing broadcast TV. I'm gonna break all those fucking boxes.
Then again why should johnny redneck have to pay for slick willies unemployement insurance, which disproportionaly subsidies the cities. Hey you know, you win some you lose some it all works out in the end.
Not seeing that logic - unemployment in rural areas is generally phenomenal. See "Eastern Kentucky." So in other words, we in the suburbs get to subsidize EVERYBODY! Yay!
newsflash, you don't have to live in the sticks to get decent rent. I live in a major suburb in the 10th largest metroplex in the country and I only pay $550/month for 1150 sq ft 2 bedroom apt. Not everywhere has crazy pricing like LA and NY.
Whatever, I don't really care to study rent patterns of the entire country. The point is still: why should only one group of people have all other groups of people subsidize their costs for one particular thing? Why should I pay for Johnny Redneck's internet access but he not pay for my apartment?
Erm, it's those "rural=farmers=nice wholesome people " who grow and produce the food we stuff in our maws every day.
I - Don't - give - a - rat's - ass. They do a job, I do a job. The government gives them tons of breaks and freebies, whereas they don't me. If I were to start a business and it floundered, I would be SOL. A farmer does it, and the government props him up. What a crock.
It's in everyone's interest to ensure a good, steady supply of food and fiber.
Admittedly, but we have such a monstrous overcapacity that it can be attributed largely to Congressional pork programs. Farm subsidies could be cut significantly, saving us a whole lot of money. But senators from rural states make sure that doesn't happen.
And if you want to talk about farm support policies, take a look over the pond, where them dang Europeans really subsidize thier farmers.
No the city dwellers are given food subsidies (indirectly). The gov, subsidies the farmers in order to keep food cost down.
Actually, food subsidies are given to farmers to keep food prices UP. The government pays farmers not to grow things to keep the bottom from falling out of the food market and bankrupting farmers. So there's another example - we pay higher food prices than we should to sustain an inflated market.
Possibly, my strongest argument for the fact that I think a kid in Sweden, under the same circumstances, should fight is this: You KNOW that loads of money will win you almost any case in the U.S. You KNOW that the RIAA would have won or at least ruined the kid in th U.S. What I KNOW is: a ton of money won't help much (if at all) in a court here in Sweden.
I see your point - "loser pays" isn't as horrible in Sweden as it almost certainly would be here because the playing field is at least more level.
And as you say, it still isn't great - your argument for fighting it in Sweden would simply be that the defendent there would be less screwed than in the US - which is almost certainly true, but I don't know too many people who are selfless enough to follow that logic. I certainly doubt I would have the courage.;)
I must say, I like your country's system of providing a REAL lawyer as opposed to some idiot who barely passed the bar exam and really doesn't care. Nice.
Why should rural dwellers get help from the rest of us on paying for their phone connection? Living in rural areas has both advantages and costs. You get the advantages of clean air, uncrowded living, etc., you should also pay the costs if it's a little more expensive to string a phone line out to your place...
Yeah, like Harvey Keitel said in Pulp Friction, "Move out of the sticks, fellas."
And where is the Universal Service Fund for rent subsidies, eh? People who live in rural areas and can get a two-bedroom apartment for $450/month. Shouldn't they help subsidize the rent on my $1000/month one-bedroom place? Why does this not occur?
I'll tell you why: because this country (yes, I'm referring to USA) has always had a strange affinity for farmers. These days (especially) farmers are businesspeople like any other, yet they get price controls, buyouts, subsidies, and all kinds of crap. And in the minds of Congressmen, who are almost universally idiots (I'm sure that's a surprise to someone out there), rural=farmers=nice wholesome people who deserve a break. Therefore, we city dwellers, who pay universally higher prices for everything except possibly utilities, have the privilege of subsidizing utilities for people who get rent, food, and virtually everything else cheaper than we do. Just great.
If he could have had faith that the legal system would recognize this and that he would have won, it would have allowed him to take on the RIAA, knowing that the debt he incurred getting legal representation would be paid back to him by the RIAA.
Yeah, well, as you say, that's one big gamble. In any case, the risk of losing goes up considerably, making one less likely to defend oneself. Maybe it should be a "plaintiff-pays-if-he-loses, but defend yourself at no risk" kind of thing.
And since the damages you can be awarded if you win are much smaller than the costs associated with the lawsuit, you have to have a very good case to file suit at all. Thus: less frivolous lawsuits. The largest sum ever awarded in damages in Sweden is about $1 million. This was paid to a person who was found guilty and imprisoned for eight years for a murder he did not commit. Lawsuits are not profitable here (except possibly for lawyers).
I'm trying to make sure I understand this - it seems like the "loser pays" law is designed to allow the side with the most expensive lawyers to use them as a bludgeon against the side with less money. In other words, it's effect seems to PREVENT frivolous lawsuits AGAINST big corporations, while ENABLING frivolous lawsuits BY such corporations.
In other words, as it pertains to the article at hand, the kid would have been actually less likely to fight the RIAA in a "loser pays" system. So "loser pays," if anything, makes the legal system less accessible to the common man who has a legitimate complaint.
I don't think I'm missing anything here, am I? Sounds like the only benefit of "loser pays" for the bulk of us might be to lessen insurance rates (as you allude to).
I think a much better idea would be to have the loser pay the winner an award equal to THEIR OWN legal fees. That would put a quick end to the "lawsuit as weapon" effect - and would give people an actual incentive to fight this crap, namely a handsone financial windfall. If both sides had access to equal representation, this would be equal to the "loser pays" system as it stands and as was probably intended.
IIRC, in Britain the loser of a civil suit gets to pay the winner's court costs. We'd have a lot more precedent a lot quicker if that were true here... hmm...I guess the upshot is that there won't be so many frivolous RIAA cases in Britain.:)
You know, I've always heard this said, and to me it sounds completely counterintuitive. Maybe that's because I'm from the 'states, so please feel free to enlighten me.
First, does "loser pays" include legal fees? Because if so, that would make it completely prohibitive to go to court with any company that had a good lawyer. It's tough enough now, but if you had to consider paying his fee if you lost, there's no way.
Second, if it's just court costs, it would still be bad. I'm sure the side with the cash would file a bunch of crap just to increase court costs, so the poor people can't afford them. If you're rich as the RIAA, double costs means just as little as regular costs. To a poor guy like me, it would be a lot worse.
Like I said, I may be missing some subtlety (or major precept) of the "loser pays" system, being American and all. But I don't see how increasing costs for a potential court loss helps the little guy, considering how retarded juries can be. There's no thing sure enough to risk the huge financial loss.
I went to RPI, I payed exactly 0 out of pocket immediately (although I did have about 25k in loans at graduation). This guy, on the other hand, was almost definitely paying some out of pocket if he had that much in the bank. Whatever financial assitance you get is based on how much you have/need. I wonder what losing this much money in a chunk does to his ability to finish school.
If I had to guess, his parents probably have enough to help him out, because it seems rare for some kid attending a good private school to have 12k of coin and his parents not. I would hazard a guess that the kid will be all right. Doesn't make it OK what the RIAA did, but I'd say if the school's financial aid policy allowed him to accumulate $12k, then the lack of it shouldn't greatly affect his ability to finish school.
$12K doesn't look like alot compared to his tuition. I think he should have fought it, gone to EFF ACLU, etc. and countersued for lost tuition, if he had to take time off from school.
First, I didn't go to private school, but I'm pretty sure that no one but the super-rich pay their entire tuition at private school. Yeah, there's a lot of debt, but at least that's payable once you get a job. I'm not saying that makes it peachy, but 12k gone NOW is still a big hit to the pocket.
I also wish he'd have gone to the EFF/ACLU - the only thing I'd worry about is the possibility that the RIAA would take this chance to bankrupt the EFF and I can't remember the ACLU taking this sort of case - though I wish they would, they have somewhat deep pockets.
Brings up another interesting point, though - too bad the kid wanted to keep his credit, because it would have been nice to see him declare bankruptcy and tell the RIAA to piss off.;)
I am with NASA on this one (almost always a good idea to stick with NASA). From when I remember of fubar'd mars missions, its been screw ups by the programers. Just as in the NFL when a receiver drops an easy pass and someone yells that he gets paid to catch passes like that, programers get PAID not to fuck things up.
Guess you forgot about the famous JPL english/metric conversion? There have been fuck-ups in the space agencies from all angles. If you want to expand your scope, programmers didn't fuck up Challenger or Columbia (btw, I hope this is an end to space vehicles beginning with "C"). Which apollo mission burned up on the ground? Wasn't software. If we want to consider Hubble, its lens was fubar'ed because someone *didn't* trust the computer.
So yeah, the programmers have screwed up, but I'd say anyone involved with multimillion (billion?) dollar equipment is paid not to fuck up, and that certainly extends to the engineers. Not to mention a lot of software errors come from poor specifications...
I'd hope someone takes your brain but it seems someone beat me to it. Note to you: writing in broken English and then bitching about "American" English *isn't unique* since it happens about 5000 times a day on slashdot. If you want to go for the clever irony angle it needs to actually be distinguishable from the rest of the rabble on this site.
I'm torn between the idea of helping out this guy who got the ol' shaft, and paying off the RIAA. I'd rather donate to a legal defense fund than OK paying off the music Mafia.
First, I would say that helping the kid is a better "good thing" than paying the RIAA is a "bad thing." To them, $12,000 (or whatever the lifesavings of an undergrad) is nothing save symbolic - to him, it's a ton. If we help him out, any symbolic victory of theirs is lost, he has no financial damage, so effectively all that's happened is that 120 people are out $100 and the RIAA is up 12 large.
The problem of course is that 1) this will encourage people in the future to settle if they think they'll get paid off, and 2) the RIAA will lose whatever shred of remorse they MIGHT have had about nuking some poor kid (laughable, I know), as they'll see it as a rightful, distributed tax.
So I think you're right - I think we need to get the EFF on board, help collect a war chest, and defend the next poor bastard they try this with. That way, there will be a clear, established precedent for the next time they try this crap after that.
The sad thing in this case is they have no leg to stand on. He never collected info about what was traded, and never got the opportunity to be helpful to the RIAA by blocking mp3's (which was one of the counts against Napster). So I have little doubt the RIAA would have lost given appropriate representation.
Maybe it wasn't as clever as you thought? Sounded like an idiot to me. I certainly wouldn't suck my own knob by claiming to have instanced "the most obvious creative use of language in an ironic sense."
I've never met an idiot who thought that "hullo" and "chap" are words unique to the British version of English. Also, please notice most of Europe, who speak/write British English. Please be learning of countries outside of America, thanks.
As soon as you learn any version of English I might listen. "Please be learning...?" Quality.
My Lord, I'm sure there is a point in that rant there somewhere, but it was well-camouflaged. Here's the thing: first, you've proven my point about talking about what *should* be rather than what *is.* There is an obligation to follow the law, but you can't legislate some general touchy-feely requirement to follow some nebulous moral code.
The only point in your rant that I will address is the following:
Following the laws as originally written and especially as originally intentioned would have sorted out this nonsense long ago. PITY it is not done.
First, of what "laws" are you speaking? Second, if following the law is sufficient, you nullify the rest of your manifesto. Third, you're not in a position to know any "intent" of a law that didn't make it into the written version unless you are a Congressman.
I would also like to mention that the socialism thing is very passe. Most people have realized that without the possibility of making money, no one has any motivation because people are lazy as hell. And do you hold a job? Because if so, you're "selling your soul" too. Nobody gets something for nothing. Nobody does something for nothing. It's called the real world. Join it and start taking your meds, AC.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who assumes that the way a law is written is the same as its implementation, or better yet, its ability to be used as a legal bludgeon, REALLY needs to get a clue.
M'Bad. Those O'Reilly guys need more unique titles for people like me with Attention Def...hey! What's that over there! ;)
So for the last 17 years, I didn't watch TV until someone told me this year, hey, TV never died, it was there all along. I was really happy, and I watched some really great shows like Jackass, but now you fuckers are telling me this TiVo shit is going to kill TV again! Fuck!
Well, I'm not waiting around for the end. I'm giving up TV. I just think it's shitty that people are always talking about some box killing broadcast TV. I'm gonna break all those fucking boxes.
Can I get a D?!?!
D!!!
Can I get an M?!?!
M!!!
Can I get a C?!?!
C!!!
Can I get an A?!?!
A!!!
What's that spell!?!?
Tyranny!
What's that spell!?!?
Bunch of assholes in Congress!
What's that spell!?!?
Lack of Innovation!
Dunno if either side would be big enough assholes to try it, but why couldn't you use DMCA there?
...hasn't this book BEEN REVIEWED on slashdot before? I mean, another O'Reilly plug never hurts, but still.
Not seeing that logic - unemployment in rural areas is generally phenomenal. See "Eastern Kentucky." So in other words, we in the suburbs get to subsidize EVERYBODY! Yay!
Whatever, I don't really care to study rent patterns of the entire country. The point is still: why should only one group of people have all other groups of people subsidize their costs for one particular thing? Why should I pay for Johnny Redneck's internet access but he not pay for my apartment?
I - Don't - give - a - rat's - ass. They do a job, I do a job. The government gives them tons of breaks and freebies, whereas they don't me. If I were to start a business and it floundered, I would be SOL. A farmer does it, and the government props him up. What a crock.
It's in everyone's interest to ensure a good, steady supply of food and fiber.
Admittedly, but we have such a monstrous overcapacity that it can be attributed largely to Congressional pork programs. Farm subsidies could be cut significantly, saving us a whole lot of money. But senators from rural states make sure that doesn't happen.
And if you want to talk about farm support policies, take a look over the pond, where them dang Europeans really subsidize thier farmers.
Still doesn't make it right.
Actually, food subsidies are given to farmers to keep food prices UP. The government pays farmers not to grow things to keep the bottom from falling out of the food market and bankrupting farmers. So there's another example - we pay higher food prices than we should to sustain an inflated market.
...Feeding....Trollllll
I see your point - "loser pays" isn't as horrible in Sweden as it almost certainly would be here because the playing field is at least more level.
And as you say, it still isn't great - your argument for fighting it in Sweden would simply be that the defendent there would be less screwed than in the US - which is almost certainly true, but I don't know too many people who are selfless enough to follow that logic. I certainly doubt I would have the courage. ;)
I must say, I like your country's system of providing a REAL lawyer as opposed to some idiot who barely passed the bar exam and really doesn't care. Nice.
Yeah, like Harvey Keitel said in Pulp Friction, "Move out of the sticks, fellas."
And where is the Universal Service Fund for rent subsidies, eh? People who live in rural areas and can get a two-bedroom apartment for $450/month. Shouldn't they help subsidize the rent on my $1000/month one-bedroom place? Why does this not occur?
I'll tell you why: because this country (yes, I'm referring to USA) has always had a strange affinity for farmers. These days (especially) farmers are businesspeople like any other, yet they get price controls, buyouts, subsidies, and all kinds of crap. And in the minds of Congressmen, who are almost universally idiots (I'm sure that's a surprise to someone out there), rural=farmers=nice wholesome people who deserve a break. Therefore, we city dwellers, who pay universally higher prices for everything except possibly utilities, have the privilege of subsidizing utilities for people who get rent, food, and virtually everything else cheaper than we do. Just great.
Yeah, well, as you say, that's one big gamble. In any case, the risk of losing goes up considerably, making one less likely to defend oneself. Maybe it should be a "plaintiff-pays-if-he-loses, but defend yourself at no risk" kind of thing.
I'm trying to make sure I understand this - it seems like the "loser pays" law is designed to allow the side with the most expensive lawyers to use them as a bludgeon against the side with less money. In other words, it's effect seems to PREVENT frivolous lawsuits AGAINST big corporations, while ENABLING frivolous lawsuits BY such corporations.
In other words, as it pertains to the article at hand, the kid would have been actually less likely to fight the RIAA in a "loser pays" system. So "loser pays," if anything, makes the legal system less accessible to the common man who has a legitimate complaint.
I don't think I'm missing anything here, am I? Sounds like the only benefit of "loser pays" for the bulk of us might be to lessen insurance rates (as you allude to).
I think a much better idea would be to have the loser pay the winner an award equal to THEIR OWN legal fees. That would put a quick end to the "lawsuit as weapon" effect - and would give people an actual incentive to fight this crap, namely a handsone financial windfall. If both sides had access to equal representation, this would be equal to the "loser pays" system as it stands and as was probably intended.
...had people signed up sooner they would have used their $5 already, having nothing left for the poor kid ;)
You know, I've always heard this said, and to me it sounds completely counterintuitive. Maybe that's because I'm from the 'states, so please feel free to enlighten me.
First, does "loser pays" include legal fees? Because if so, that would make it completely prohibitive to go to court with any company that had a good lawyer. It's tough enough now, but if you had to consider paying his fee if you lost, there's no way.
Second, if it's just court costs, it would still be bad. I'm sure the side with the cash would file a bunch of crap just to increase court costs, so the poor people can't afford them. If you're rich as the RIAA, double costs means just as little as regular costs. To a poor guy like me, it would be a lot worse.
Like I said, I may be missing some subtlety (or major precept) of the "loser pays" system, being American and all. But I don't see how increasing costs for a potential court loss helps the little guy, considering how retarded juries can be. There's no thing sure enough to risk the huge financial loss.
If I had to guess, his parents probably have enough to help him out, because it seems rare for some kid attending a good private school to have 12k of coin and his parents not. I would hazard a guess that the kid will be all right. Doesn't make it OK what the RIAA did, but I'd say if the school's financial aid policy allowed him to accumulate $12k, then the lack of it shouldn't greatly affect his ability to finish school.
First, I didn't go to private school, but I'm pretty sure that no one but the super-rich pay their entire tuition at private school. Yeah, there's a lot of debt, but at least that's payable once you get a job. I'm not saying that makes it peachy, but 12k gone NOW is still a big hit to the pocket.
I also wish he'd have gone to the EFF/ACLU - the only thing I'd worry about is the possibility that the RIAA would take this chance to bankrupt the EFF and I can't remember the ACLU taking this sort of case - though I wish they would, they have somewhat deep pockets.
Brings up another interesting point, though - too bad the kid wanted to keep his credit, because it would have been nice to see him declare bankruptcy and tell the RIAA to piss off. ;)
Guess you forgot about the famous JPL english/metric conversion? There have been fuck-ups in the space agencies from all angles. If you want to expand your scope, programmers didn't fuck up Challenger or Columbia (btw, I hope this is an end to space vehicles beginning with "C"). Which apollo mission burned up on the ground? Wasn't software. If we want to consider Hubble, its lens was fubar'ed because someone *didn't* trust the computer.
So yeah, the programmers have screwed up, but I'd say anyone involved with multimillion (billion?) dollar equipment is paid not to fuck up, and that certainly extends to the engineers. Not to mention a lot of software errors come from poor specifications...
I'd hope someone takes your brain but it seems someone beat me to it. Note to you: writing in broken English and then bitching about "American" English *isn't unique* since it happens about 5000 times a day on slashdot. If you want to go for the clever irony angle it needs to actually be distinguishable from the rest of the rabble on this site.
First, I would say that helping the kid is a better "good thing" than paying the RIAA is a "bad thing." To them, $12,000 (or whatever the lifesavings of an undergrad) is nothing save symbolic - to him, it's a ton. If we help him out, any symbolic victory of theirs is lost, he has no financial damage, so effectively all that's happened is that 120 people are out $100 and the RIAA is up 12 large.
The problem of course is that 1) this will encourage people in the future to settle if they think they'll get paid off, and 2) the RIAA will lose whatever shred of remorse they MIGHT have had about nuking some poor kid (laughable, I know), as they'll see it as a rightful, distributed tax.
So I think you're right - I think we need to get the EFF on board, help collect a war chest, and defend the next poor bastard they try this with. That way, there will be a clear, established precedent for the next time they try this crap after that.
The sad thing in this case is they have no leg to stand on. He never collected info about what was traded, and never got the opportunity to be helpful to the RIAA by blocking mp3's (which was one of the counts against Napster). So I have little doubt the RIAA would have lost given appropriate representation.
Maybe it wasn't as clever as you thought? Sounded like an idiot to me. I certainly wouldn't suck my own knob by claiming to have instanced "the most obvious creative use of language in an ironic sense."
As soon as you learn any version of English I might listen. "Please be learning...?" Quality.
The only point in your rant that I will address is the following:
Following the laws as originally written and especially as originally intentioned would have sorted out this nonsense long ago. PITY it is not done.
First, of what "laws" are you speaking? Second, if following the law is sufficient, you nullify the rest of your manifesto. Third, you're not in a position to know any "intent" of a law that didn't make it into the written version unless you are a Congressman.
I would also like to mention that the socialism thing is very passe. Most people have realized that without the possibility of making money, no one has any motivation because people are lazy as hell. And do you hold a job? Because if so, you're "selling your soul" too. Nobody gets something for nothing. Nobody does something for nothing. It's called the real world. Join it and start taking your meds, AC.
CPU my ass. You couldn't design a fucking adder. And who modded this tripe informative anyway?