If a juror were an expert in p2p file sharing software (a) he might have some bone to pick, being on one side of the issue or the other, and/or (b) he might be unduly persuasive to the other jurors.
I can understand that. On a more general level, though, I've been called to jury duty several times in the past twenty-five years. I never tried to get out of it (though I could have) but I was kicked off said juries via peremptory challenges as soon as it became known that I was an engineer. Every damn time. And not just me: I would get to know people beforehand while sitting in the jury pool, and it became rather clear to me that anyone with the ability to handle numbers was not wanted.
Statistics abuse is an efficient way to influence the thought processes of innumerate individuals ("Did you know that 97.3% of people prefer Crelm toothpaste?") Technical people are a lot harder to fool in that regard, so I'm guessing that's why I was repeatedly booted. The questioning never got any farther than my occupation.
I know, statistically my sample is too small to be valid, but I know a number of people who have had similar experiences.
not so much when you've got ten thousand pointing out the flaws and inaccuracies in the prosecution's arguments.
Yes, but those viewers have no input whatsoever once a trial begins. Sure, beforehand news stories can potentially poison the jury pool... but after that you might as well televise it. The problem is that nobody in that room (on either side, or the judge for that matter) wants to have his or her screwups broadcast for the whole world to see.
Take the O.J. Simpson case, for example. There are a number of people who wish that case hadn't been broadcast in all its glory.
We must centrally plan this vital piece of national infrastructure.
That's not really correct. There was no "central planning". At that was done in the Communications Act of 1934 was to require that AT&T provide universal coverage as a cost of doing business, and as a condition of being granted the national telephone monopoly. The buildout itself was planned and executed by AT&T, not Congress.
I agree with your choice. I did the same thing once in the past.
Yes. It's like buying a car: sometimes you just have to walk away from a bad deal, even if you really need the car.
I also made a decision long ago never to submit to a lie detector test or drug testing as conditions of employment. Why should I trust an employer to honor their obligations to me if they trust me so little from the outset?
Well, that's the thing, isn't it. Many employers seem to feel that loyalty need only flow from the employee to the employer, and that the reverse is entirely optional. Some kind of sense of entitlement: you should be grateful that you even have a job, low-life, even if we mistreat you.
I've quit a few jobs over the years, and the look of shock on the faces of self-important management types who are suddenly realizing that I no longer care what they think is always entertaining. I got called into the CEO's office of one small outfit I worked at: he and the VP were there. Management at this place had a very high opinion of themselves and the work environment they had created. They were mistaken, in my opinion, which is why I was leaving. So I was asked, "Do you still want to work with us?", the expectation being that I would say, "Oh YES sir, please sir, I LOVE it here!"
Instead, I said, "No, not really." They were absolutely STUNNED at this repudiation of their wonderfulness. Kinda creepy, really. "Well, I, I, guess you'd better clean out your desk then" the CEO said. "Already have," I told them. I learned that lesson long before: if you're gonna quit, prepare for it first.
They were decent enough about it, though, cut me my severance check on the spot.
If you're such an expert on things, you'd know that downloading copyrighted material does not violate copyright law. Distributing it does. Turn seeding off and you're legal.;)
Well, since I'm an engineer not a lawyer, I have no idea if that's correct or not, however I doubt that distinction would matter one bit to the RIAA. The reason they're going after those distributing content is really more technical in nature: that's easy to do. Determining what, if anything, that someone downloaded from someone else is a bit more difficult.
This is Slashdot. We dislike anything that isn't free as in beer.
We don't pay for music, videos or software; we're not going to pay for a blog.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you truly want to see the RIAA stopped cold, and see rational reform in copyright law, it's people like Ray Beckerman and groups like the EFF that will probably bring that about. Helping them out now is a wise investment. I happen to find Ray's blog far more worthwhile than 99.99% of the blogs out there (99% of everything is crud, after all) and where else will you find such a substantial collection of relevant court documents? Heck, where else can the people involved in these cases, from judges on down, educate themselves as to what's really going on, with all the proper documentation? Nowhere that I've been able to find. Would you rather a judge presiding over an RIAA case receive his information from their attorneys... or from Ray's blog? Having all that data collected in one place is valuable in itself.
To the individual or individuals who keep modding this comment "Troll": the troll mod is not supposed to be used to express disagreement with someone's commentary. Go read the moderator guidelines again.
The "Recording Industry vs. the People" site has become incredibly ad-heavy. It now has layer ads that won't dismiss, a link farm, and regular Google ads. This thing has advertising from services I've never even heard of, like "shareasale.com". Amusingly, it has ads for RIAA-controlled music, and even for the iTunes store.
Block "st.blogads.com" to make it at least tolerable.
If that bugs you so much, install Privoxy (or something similar) and then hit the Paypal link and send Ray a donation. I'm assuming that you find his site valuable content-wise, or you wouldn't be complaining about the ads.
If Beckerman is as disingenuous as I currently suspect he is, that is very much a "real issue" and relevant
Very well, you've made your point. Find something else to talk about: you're dangerously close to trolling. And there's nothing wrong with a desire to exclude those who you find irritating or irrelevant... that, ultimately, is the basic function of the Slashdot moderation system. I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to find that out for yourself soon enough.
Thank you. It's tough to do the right thing sometimes, and you took a big risk. Your integrity helps all of us, and our entire industry.
Well, thank you, but it was as much enlightened self-interest as anything else. I wasn't about to be saddled with a set of obscene legal obligations. I'm willing to work hard and play by the rules, but these guys were way over the top. I was in my mid-twenties at the time, and I knew that I was unlikely spend the next forty years at that place and retire there. So I was really trying to defend my career options after I eventually moved on. Yeah, it was a risk, but I figured that, longer-term, it was a bigger risk to sign. Had I been someone with a wife and a couple of kids to feed... well. Honestly, I don't know what I would have done. I'd like to think I'd still have told them to stuff it where the Sun don't shine, but sometimes the "right" choice isn't so obvious.
I will say this, though... if more of us stood up to such pricks there'd be a lot less of them around.
if you would dare to suggest that I be denied my right to publicly voice my opinions just because YOU don't happen to like them.
Well, I'm not posting AC, but I also wish you would go away. You're trying to hijack this thread and make it about your dislike for NYCL, rather than discussing the real issues.
This is very welcome news. However, we need to remember that a cornered wounded beast has nothing to lose and can therefore be very dangerous. This isn't over.
The RIAA has little to lose no matter what happens. Eventually their masters will tell them to stop, and that will be that. Well, either that, or the legal system with bitchslap them sufficiently. Hard to say which will happen first.
I wish people would keep firmly in mind that the RIAA is a tool, no more and no less. It is the organizations wielding that tool who should be held accountable.
That's a truly odd accusation to make; my employer(s) had no influence nor relevance to my comment.
Well, you clearly missed the GP's point (or perhaps are deliberately misconstruing it.) Generally, those who express opinions similar to yours on Slashdot are considered to be RIAA shills. Frankly, the fact that the media people have taken such an obvious dislike to Mr. Beckerman in particular indicates that he's doing something right. If he's enriching himself over this he's no different than the majority of attorneys in this country. He's on the right side, and that's sufficient for most of us. I do suspect you're right in one sense: he's probably not driving a used Chevrolet, and isn't giving his services away for free. What, exactly, was your point again?
So far as impartiality goes... well. Given that his blog refers to original legal documents whenever they're available makes it hard to claim any degree of journalistic bias or manipulation of facts (other than the fact he makes no bones about his opinion of the way RIAA attorneys practices law.) There aren't too many other sources of reliable information on this subject, anyway, and honestly some of us appreciate his efforts.
You're free to disagree, and you're opinion is certainly welcome so far as it goes. Just don't expect a lot of support for them in this particular venue.
What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?
Slightly longer answer... why do you hate the U.S. so much that you want it to become one of those shitholes you just mentioned? Do you (or any other proponent of the so-called "Global Economy" for that matter) have a good answer to that?
Slashdot Mirror
and Slashdot
Use them both and double your bandwidth.
[Citation needed]
Citation? What do you think this is, a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
I, for one, welcome our new levelheaded overlord.
Yeah, well. The Frankenstein Monster was levelheaded too.
foodnetwork.com isn't working for some odd reason now...
Trye "foodpoint.com" instead.
If a juror were an expert in p2p file sharing software (a) he might have some bone to pick, being on one side of the issue or the other, and/or (b) he might be unduly persuasive to the other jurors.
I can understand that. On a more general level, though, I've been called to jury duty several times in the past twenty-five years. I never tried to get out of it (though I could have) but I was kicked off said juries via peremptory challenges as soon as it became known that I was an engineer. Every damn time. And not just me: I would get to know people beforehand while sitting in the jury pool, and it became rather clear to me that anyone with the ability to handle numbers was not wanted.
Statistics abuse is an efficient way to influence the thought processes of innumerate individuals ("Did you know that 97.3% of people prefer Crelm toothpaste?") Technical people are a lot harder to fool in that regard, so I'm guessing that's why I was repeatedly booted. The questioning never got any farther than my occupation.
I know, statistically my sample is too small to be valid, but I know a number of people who have had similar experiences.
Until somewhere down the track, we have Monday Night Execution live on pay-per-jury. Remember, it's the red button for guilty, green for innocent!
Ben Richards: "I'll be back!"
Damon Killian: "Only in a rerun"
not so much when you've got ten thousand pointing out the flaws and inaccuracies in the prosecution's arguments.
Yes, but those viewers have no input whatsoever once a trial begins. Sure, beforehand news stories can potentially poison the jury pool ... but after that you might as well televise it. The problem is that nobody in that room (on either side, or the judge for that matter) wants to have his or her screwups broadcast for the whole world to see.
Take the O.J. Simpson case, for example. There are a number of people who wish that case hadn't been broadcast in all its glory.
but here in AR the only roaches you see are these big brown "fuck you" roaches that don't give a crap about freaking lights.
As I recall, one of them was elected Governor of your fine State.
"third path", another closed, propertarian network.
I don't know that word. Does it mean "Proprietary Libertarian"?
This will mean a lot of shared sacrifice for the local phone monopolies.
Yes, well, they're not very good at that.
We must centrally plan this vital piece of national infrastructure.
That's not really correct. There was no "central planning". At that was done in the Communications Act of 1934 was to require that AT&T provide universal coverage as a cost of doing business, and as a condition of being granted the national telephone monopoly. The buildout itself was planned and executed by AT&T, not Congress.
Good regulation, not central planning.
I agree with your choice. I did the same thing once in the past.
Yes. It's like buying a car: sometimes you just have to walk away from a bad deal, even if you really need the car.
I also made a decision long ago never to submit to a lie detector test or drug testing as conditions of employment. Why should I trust an employer to honor their obligations to me if they trust me so little from the outset?
Well, that's the thing, isn't it. Many employers seem to feel that loyalty need only flow from the employee to the employer, and that the reverse is entirely optional. Some kind of sense of entitlement: you should be grateful that you even have a job, low-life, even if we mistreat you.
I've quit a few jobs over the years, and the look of shock on the faces of self-important management types who are suddenly realizing that I no longer care what they think is always entertaining. I got called into the CEO's office of one small outfit I worked at: he and the VP were there. Management at this place had a very high opinion of themselves and the work environment they had created. They were mistaken, in my opinion, which is why I was leaving. So I was asked, "Do you still want to work with us?", the expectation being that I would say, "Oh YES sir, please sir, I LOVE it here!"
Instead, I said, "No, not really." They were absolutely STUNNED at this repudiation of their wonderfulness. Kinda creepy, really. "Well, I, I, guess you'd better clean out your desk then" the CEO said. "Already have," I told them. I learned that lesson long before: if you're gonna quit, prepare for it first.
They were decent enough about it, though, cut me my severance check on the spot.
If you're such an expert on things, you'd know that downloading copyrighted material does not violate copyright law. Distributing it does. Turn seeding off and you're legal. ;)
Well, since I'm an engineer not a lawyer, I have no idea if that's correct or not, however I doubt that distinction would matter one bit to the RIAA. The reason they're going after those distributing content is really more technical in nature: that's easy to do. Determining what, if anything, that someone downloaded from someone else is a bit more difficult.
This is Slashdot. We dislike anything that isn't free as in beer.
We don't pay for music, videos or software; we're not going to pay for a blog.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you truly want to see the RIAA stopped cold, and see rational reform in copyright law, it's people like Ray Beckerman and groups like the EFF that will probably bring that about. Helping them out now is a wise investment. I happen to find Ray's blog far more worthwhile than 99.99% of the blogs out there (99% of everything is crud, after all) and where else will you find such a substantial collection of relevant court documents? Heck, where else can the people involved in these cases, from judges on down, educate themselves as to what's really going on, with all the proper documentation? Nowhere that I've been able to find. Would you rather a judge presiding over an RIAA case receive his information from their attorneys ... or from Ray's blog? Having all that data collected in one place is valuable in itself.
So yeah, I hit the Paypal button. You should too.
To the individual or individuals who keep modding this comment "Troll": the troll mod is not supposed to be used to express disagreement with someone's commentary. Go read the moderator guidelines again.
The "Recording Industry vs. the People" site has become incredibly ad-heavy. It now has layer ads that won't dismiss, a link farm, and regular Google ads. This thing has advertising from services I've never even heard of, like "shareasale.com". Amusingly, it has ads for RIAA-controlled music, and even for the iTunes store.
Block "st.blogads.com" to make it at least tolerable.
If that bugs you so much, install Privoxy (or something similar) and then hit the Paypal link and send Ray a donation. I'm assuming that you find his site valuable content-wise, or you wouldn't be complaining about the ads.
If Beckerman is as disingenuous as I currently suspect he is, that is very much a "real issue" and relevant
Very well, you've made your point. Find something else to talk about: you're dangerously close to trolling. And there's nothing wrong with a desire to exclude those who you find irritating or irrelevant ... that, ultimately, is the basic function of the Slashdot moderation system. I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to find that out for yourself soon enough.
I'd say you are new here, but given your ID, you must just be young (or fragile).
Or using Daddy's account.
Thank you. It's tough to do the right thing sometimes, and you took a big risk. Your integrity helps all of us, and our entire industry.
Well, thank you, but it was as much enlightened self-interest as anything else. I wasn't about to be saddled with a set of obscene legal obligations. I'm willing to work hard and play by the rules, but these guys were way over the top. I was in my mid-twenties at the time, and I knew that I was unlikely spend the next forty years at that place and retire there. So I was really trying to defend my career options after I eventually moved on. Yeah, it was a risk, but I figured that, longer-term, it was a bigger risk to sign. Had I been someone with a wife and a couple of kids to feed ... well. Honestly, I don't know what I would have done. I'd like to think I'd still have told them to stuff it where the Sun don't shine, but sometimes the "right" choice isn't so obvious.
... if more of us stood up to such pricks there'd be a lot less of them around.
I will say this, though
Meh, with Adblock Plus running I still see a few ads but it's not nearly as bad as what you described.
Maybe try running a better browser?
A better browser, or if he really is offended by the advertising he could run Privoxy or something similar.
if you would dare to suggest that I be denied my right to publicly voice my opinions just because YOU don't happen to like them.
Well, I'm not posting AC, but I also wish you would go away. You're trying to hijack this thread and make it about your dislike for NYCL, rather than discussing the real issues.
This is very welcome news. However, we need to remember that a cornered wounded beast has nothing to lose and can therefore be very dangerous. This isn't over.
The RIAA has little to lose no matter what happens. Eventually their masters will tell them to stop, and that will be that. Well, either that, or the legal system with bitchslap them sufficiently. Hard to say which will happen first.
I wish people would keep firmly in mind that the RIAA is a tool, no more and no less. It is the organizations wielding that tool who should be held accountable.
That's a truly odd accusation to make; my employer(s) had no influence nor relevance to my comment.
Well, you clearly missed the GP's point (or perhaps are deliberately misconstruing it.) Generally, those who express opinions similar to yours on Slashdot are considered to be RIAA shills. Frankly, the fact that the media people have taken such an obvious dislike to Mr. Beckerman in particular indicates that he's doing something right. If he's enriching himself over this he's no different than the majority of attorneys in this country. He's on the right side, and that's sufficient for most of us. I do suspect you're right in one sense: he's probably not driving a used Chevrolet, and isn't giving his services away for free. What, exactly, was your point again?
... well. Given that his blog refers to original legal documents whenever they're available makes it hard to claim any degree of journalistic bias or manipulation of facts (other than the fact he makes no bones about his opinion of the way RIAA attorneys practices law.) There aren't too many other sources of reliable information on this subject, anyway, and honestly some of us appreciate his efforts.
So far as impartiality goes
You're free to disagree, and you're opinion is certainly welcome so far as it goes. Just don't expect a lot of support for them in this particular venue.
and sell our jobs overseas.
What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?
Slightly longer answer ... why do you hate the U.S. so much that you want it to become one of those shitholes you just mentioned? Do you (or any other proponent of the so-called "Global Economy" for that matter) have a good answer to that?
lack-of-interest in ethical behavior that has bought corporate America to its current state.
-Liked your typo, in a poetic sort of way...
Thanks ... it was one of those SUBMIT --> "Goddammit!" moments.