I suppose in your world, it costs nothing to make a song. That's what you are charged for -- the creation. Duplication is the method by which the creation is delivered to you. Art is not free just because duplication is. At the most basic level, if the artist has no food (i.e., money to buy food), the artist dies and no art is made. Just because duplication is cheap doesn't mean art is cost-free.
As noted below this, was a retrial. As an aside, when a decision is appeled, it is not final. That means it can change in your favor, and it can change in a way that is not in your favor. There is no rule that the appealing party should get a better deal.
As this case proves, Jamie would be better off today if she had lost her request for a new trial. Moral: be careful what you ask for.
Sometimes, the best lawyer you can hope for is the one who tells you that your case sucks. People hate to hear this however, and I'm sure NYCL, as with any lawyer, has had plenty of experience disappointing people who equate the statement that heir case blows, with thinking that the lawyer sucks or is a wuss or something like that. People love to hear hopeful things, and really hate reality checks.
Sometimes, it is worse to put on your expert than to leave him/her out of the trial. This does happen and it really rots, but if you're expert's testimony is going to be helpful to the other side, you'd have to be an idiot to present that testimony.
The solution to this is not private piracy. The solution is to change the government. I am fairly confident that a corrupt government is not going to be made good by a citizenry acting corruptly.
If a landlord signed up for such a deal, why should I have any sympathy. The landlord made the choice. Besides, it is now trivial and cheap for indy artists to get their work on iTunes or Emusic or probably dozens of other places. If a musical artist wants to sign with a label -- why should I care? That's the artist's choice.
You failed to comprehend. I didn't say violent revolution is better. What I said was that trying to hide and slip under the radar while doing what one wants, does not change government in the least. There are ways to change law ranging from civil disobedience at one end of the spectrum, to taking up arms on the other. I did not indicate where in that spectrum I believe action should be taken. It should also be clear from my post and somewhat derogatory depiction of "file sharing", that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy with those who would deprive people of their living, while at the same time thinking that the punishment in this case was excessive. Jamie is wrong. File sharers are wrong. The RIAA is wrong. And the Government is wrong. I'm waiting for someone to be reasonable.
Point one is true. There is a lot jealousy of lottery winners. As for point two, while my favorite public radio show can be had free as a podcast, and I download it weekly religiously (This American Life), I did kick in $30 recently to help defray those bandwidth costs. The thing is, the people who make TAL have decided to let me have it free. They don't have to, but I'm glad that they do. If they chose to charge for each episode, that is also their right.
I challenge you to find one instance of where I said wiring a house did not require creativity. I was talking merely about how the two groups, electricians and artists, tend to get paid. As for electricians getting stiffed, if they don't get paid up front, that's on them. Of course, they can always file a "mechanic's lien" or whatever the similar is called in the construction trades against the house. Chances are the homeowner is going to cough up the money rather than have the house sold at auction.
I have. A fine of $10,000 to a person who makes $20k per year is huge. A fine of $10k to Bill Gates is something he probably never even hears about, it being taken care of lackeys making $150k per year. This is why in suits against big companies, the damages are calculated as a percentage of net profit.
Right, under the table shady employment. Of course she'll have a hard time with healthcare. She'll have a hard time with the IRS if she gets caught. If she gets hurt at work, no workers' comp. If she gets laid off, no unemployment. Her SS is going to be reduced. And I'm sure there are many other disadvantages I'm not thinking of.
One: Jealousy is not a valid reason why copyright is wrong.
Two: If you wire up someone's house, that person pays for all the materials, labor, and profit it takes for you to have your own house and food. $1 will barely buy a single outlet, let alone the box, wire, circuit breakers, or labor to install it. So a person who lets people have songs for $1 but keeps copyright, is hoping to put food on the table through volume sales. If it was required that the first sale cover all costs and some profit -- albums might cost $100,000. Everyone else gets the song free after the first sale, but if nobody bought the album in the first place, nobody would have the song at all. That's part of the social contract behind copyright -- the creator can let people have access to the work at an affordable price, but keeps enough control over the work that he/she can try to sell it to many people. That benefits society because instead of waiting for a patron to pay for the whole enchilada, we all get the work for a modest price while the artist takes the risk making or losing money on his/her efforts.
Three: A smart electrician (gets paid upfront) has almost no risk -- the job is simple profit. For an artist, there is an enormous risk of getting nothing after working very hard. If you don't like that some artists in essence win the lottery, then ensure that all artists get to earn a living wage. Society gets a lot of low cost high quality art from artists who do not win the publicity lottery, so it might actually cost more if artists got paid like electricians.
Well, anything she currently has could be seized and sold off, within some limits of bankruptcy protection. If she ever does earn money, her wages can be garnished to some extent. No matter how much ever earns, she's not going to get keep but a fraction. She is in essence, incapable of escaping poverty for her entire life. Every extra nickel she gets will be taken. Her only hope is to live off the grid now, but that has its own drawbacks.
But we have been robbed, and the contract broken. We, The People are no longer represented anymore, because we can't cut individual checks to bribe our own elected officials like the multinationals can.
If you feel that you have no voice in the government, the way to change the government is not through anonymous piracy. Engage in civil protest or violent revolution -- whatever works for you. But anonymous leaching, and I mean that not only in the p2p sense, but also in the "how is an artist supposed to make a living if everything can be had free" sense, isn't going to accomplish anything. Rather, it shows "file sharers" to be "what can I get for nothing" freeloaders rather than people interested in changing our corrupt government.
As for the issues in this case, the damages are clearly excessive. Although I do believe that Jamie did the deed so to speak, and that the regular retail cost of the songs is not enough (*), $2m is more than she'll make in a lifetime. Damages should be something like 20-30% of her income for a year. That would be substantial without being ridiculously high.
(*) If maximum damages = price of song, there is no incentive, aside from one's own moral compass, to pay for content.
Considering the content of your message, no wonder you posted as AC. Obama isn't all that better than Bush privacy wise, and his 100% employment program for Health Insurance Executive Middle-men is just frosting.
While email may be about as private as postcards, the analogy still fails. It would work if all postcards were first sent the NSA where they were read before being remailed. That isn't happening so with postcards, the message might be read, probably inadvertently. With email, the message is read intentionally.
Ummm... you're thinking our government still abides by the Constitution and are ignoring the huge powergrab the Executive branch has been engaged in for years. In a few decades, Congress and the Supreme Court will be nothing but a rubber-stamp factory for the president's whims.
I live in NW Washington State. When I drive down to Seattle, I dread the parts of the freeway that are concrete. Thump, thump, thump, thump, and the surface itself is loud so you get general roar behind the periodic thumping. Worse still, when you get to the north side of Seattle it gets really loud. I've been stuck in traffic there a few times, and the road bed that gets ground by tires has worn away to reveal the "gravel" -- the stones they used in the concrete are as big as a full size computer mouse. With the cement worn away, it's like driving on cobblestones. No wonder the freeway is so loud. The grooves in other areas really suck with a motorcycle. And then in other places, there are other types of grindings, 3 parallell strips about 3" wide and 12" long spaced in each tire well of the lane, each set about 12-18" from the other longitudinally. So here you get zipzipzipzipzipTHUMPzipzipzipzipzipTHUM.
I have a smallish Cannon copier. There is a button that is lit with a green light when it is in powersave mode. When you press that button to go into power mode, no other key lights up. Seems ridiculously backward to me.
Slashdot Mirror
And when she leaves him, so goes all his money. Living off the grid like this has its own problems.
I suppose in your world, it costs nothing to make a song. That's what you are charged for -- the creation. Duplication is the method by which the creation is delivered to you. Art is not free just because duplication is. At the most basic level, if the artist has no food (i.e., money to buy food), the artist dies and no art is made. Just because duplication is cheap doesn't mean art is cost-free.
It's more likely that their expert's testimony would damage their own case. This happens. It sucks. The only option is to not call the expert.
When wasn't the world driven by greed?
As noted below this, was a retrial. As an aside, when a decision is appeled, it is not final. That means it can change in your favor, and it can change in a way that is not in your favor. There is no rule that the appealing party should get a better deal.
As this case proves, Jamie would be better off today if she had lost her request for a new trial. Moral: be careful what you ask for.
Sometimes, the best lawyer you can hope for is the one who tells you that your case sucks. People hate to hear this however, and I'm sure NYCL, as with any lawyer, has had plenty of experience disappointing people who equate the statement that heir case blows, with thinking that the lawyer sucks or is a wuss or something like that. People love to hear hopeful things, and really hate reality checks.
Sometimes, it is worse to put on your expert than to leave him/her out of the trial. This does happen and it really rots, but if you're expert's testimony is going to be helpful to the other side, you'd have to be an idiot to present that testimony.
The solution to this is not private piracy. The solution is to change the government. I am fairly confident that a corrupt government is not going to be made good by a citizenry acting corruptly.
If a landlord signed up for such a deal, why should I have any sympathy. The landlord made the choice. Besides, it is now trivial and cheap for indy artists to get their work on iTunes or Emusic or probably dozens of other places. If a musical artist wants to sign with a label -- why should I care? That's the artist's choice.
You failed to comprehend. I didn't say violent revolution is better. What I said was that trying to hide and slip under the radar while doing what one wants, does not change government in the least. There are ways to change law ranging from civil disobedience at one end of the spectrum, to taking up arms on the other. I did not indicate where in that spectrum I believe action should be taken. It should also be clear from my post and somewhat derogatory depiction of "file sharing", that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy with those who would deprive people of their living, while at the same time thinking that the punishment in this case was excessive. Jamie is wrong. File sharers are wrong. The RIAA is wrong. And the Government is wrong. I'm waiting for someone to be reasonable.
Point one is true. There is a lot jealousy of lottery winners. As for point two, while my favorite public radio show can be had free as a podcast, and I download it weekly religiously (This American Life), I did kick in $30 recently to help defray those bandwidth costs. The thing is, the people who make TAL have decided to let me have it free. They don't have to, but I'm glad that they do. If they chose to charge for each episode, that is also their right.
I challenge you to find one instance of where I said wiring a house did not require creativity. I was talking merely about how the two groups, electricians and artists, tend to get paid. As for electricians getting stiffed, if they don't get paid up front, that's on them. Of course, they can always file a "mechanic's lien" or whatever the similar is called in the construction trades against the house. Chances are the homeowner is going to cough up the money rather than have the house sold at auction.
I have. A fine of $10,000 to a person who makes $20k per year is huge. A fine of $10k to Bill Gates is something he probably never even hears about, it being taken care of lackeys making $150k per year. This is why in suits against big companies, the damages are calculated as a percentage of net profit.
Right, under the table shady employment. Of course she'll have a hard time with healthcare. She'll have a hard time with the IRS if she gets caught. If she gets hurt at work, no workers' comp. If she gets laid off, no unemployment. Her SS is going to be reduced. And I'm sure there are many other disadvantages I'm not thinking of.
One: Jealousy is not a valid reason why copyright is wrong.
Two: If you wire up someone's house, that person pays for all the materials, labor, and profit it takes for you to have your own house and food. $1 will barely buy a single outlet, let alone the box, wire, circuit breakers, or labor to install it. So a person who lets people have songs for $1 but keeps copyright, is hoping to put food on the table through volume sales. If it was required that the first sale cover all costs and some profit -- albums might cost $100,000. Everyone else gets the song free after the first sale, but if nobody bought the album in the first place, nobody would have the song at all. That's part of the social contract behind copyright -- the creator can let people have access to the work at an affordable price, but keeps enough control over the work that he/she can try to sell it to many people. That benefits society because instead of waiting for a patron to pay for the whole enchilada, we all get the work for a modest price while the artist takes the risk making or losing money on his/her efforts.
Three: A smart electrician (gets paid upfront) has almost no risk -- the job is simple profit. For an artist, there is an enormous risk of getting nothing after working very hard. If you don't like that some artists in essence win the lottery, then ensure that all artists get to earn a living wage. Society gets a lot of low cost high quality art from artists who do not win the publicity lottery, so it might actually cost more if artists got paid like electricians.
Well, anything she currently has could be seized and sold off, within some limits of bankruptcy protection. If she ever does earn money, her wages can be garnished to some extent. No matter how much ever earns, she's not going to get keep but a fraction. She is in essence, incapable of escaping poverty for her entire life. Every extra nickel she gets will be taken. Her only hope is to live off the grid now, but that has its own drawbacks.
If you feel that you have no voice in the government, the way to change the government is not through anonymous piracy. Engage in civil protest or violent revolution -- whatever works for you. But anonymous leaching, and I mean that not only in the p2p sense, but also in the "how is an artist supposed to make a living if everything can be had free" sense, isn't going to accomplish anything. Rather, it shows "file sharers" to be "what can I get for nothing" freeloaders rather than people interested in changing our corrupt government.
As for the issues in this case, the damages are clearly excessive. Although I do believe that Jamie did the deed so to speak, and that the regular retail cost of the songs is not enough (*), $2m is more than she'll make in a lifetime. Damages should be something like 20-30% of her income for a year. That would be substantial without being ridiculously high.
(*) If maximum damages = price of song, there is no incentive, aside from one's own moral compass, to pay for content.
Considering the content of your message, no wonder you posted as AC. Obama isn't all that better than Bush privacy wise, and his 100% employment program for Health Insurance Executive Middle-men is just frosting.
Have you seen this yet:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Lot's of video of current jerks weaving their evil future selves.
While email may be about as private as postcards, the analogy still fails. It would work if all postcards were first sent the NSA where they were read before being remailed. That isn't happening so with postcards, the message might be read, probably inadvertently. With email, the message is read intentionally.
I hope you used a coffee house IP for that, because now it's on their list.
Ummm ... you're thinking our government still abides by the Constitution and are ignoring the huge powergrab the Executive branch has been engaged in for years. In a few decades, Congress and the Supreme Court will be nothing but a rubber-stamp factory for the president's whims.
I live in NW Washington State. When I drive down to Seattle, I dread the parts of the freeway that are concrete. Thump, thump, thump, thump, and the surface itself is loud so you get general roar behind the periodic thumping. Worse still, when you get to the north side of Seattle it gets really loud. I've been stuck in traffic there a few times, and the road bed that gets ground by tires has worn away to reveal the "gravel" -- the stones they used in the concrete are as big as a full size computer mouse. With the cement worn away, it's like driving on cobblestones. No wonder the freeway is so loud. The grooves in other areas really suck with a motorcycle. And then in other places, there are other types of grindings, 3 parallell strips about 3" wide and 12" long spaced in each tire well of the lane, each set about 12-18" from the other longitudinally. So here you get zipzipzipzipzipTHUMPzipzipzipzipzipTHUM.
I love blacktop.
I have a smallish Cannon copier. There is a button that is lit with a green light when it is in powersave mode. When you press that button to go into power mode, no other key lights up. Seems ridiculously backward to me.
Hands on your head and step away from the coffee pot. SLOWLY.
No - never mind this last one. The obscuring junk is back.