Yeah but that same customer owns a DS, PSP, PS3 and probably others. Why are people on/. proposing that this is his fault?
You begin with the simplest possible explanation.
To me, multiple game systems suggests a rat's nest of cables, drug store power strips. Systems resting on carpets or balanced precariously one on top of the other.
"The onus is on Reiser to come up with evidence - where is the chair? explain the blood, why was the car washed?"
Hint: there's this concept we have called 'innocent until proven guilty'.
"Innocent until proven guilty" establishes the ultimate burden of proof. It does not mean that the defendant can afford to leave significant questions unanswered.
Thousands of images of child pornography and rape were found on your computer. Blood and hair from the missing girl were found in your R.V. Something about the size and shape of the child's head was smashed against the wall above your bed.
Where is the sleeping bag you bought at WalMart last week? What sudden impulse drove you to take a 200 mile run to nowhere out in the desert?
These are the kind of questions that left unanswered end in a verdict of "guilty as charged." Danielle Van Dam Murder Case
If they are collecting money for bands that aren't even affiliated with them, then they aren't giving these bands any money either, so basically they are just taking money.
Mouse over to SoundExchange.com.
You'll find membership applications, FAQs, forms to download, and a search engine. Enter the name of your band and find out what they owe you.
The point of having a statutory license and a single administrator is that broadcasters can play damn near anything without ever being drawn into disputes over licensing and royalties.
This is a good thing for the independent artist, music outside the mainstream.
What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show?
Good god. Google returns 300,000 matches for the phrase "royalty free audio intros."
Every time they pursue one of these cases in criminal courts of law, they cost the American taxpayer large amounts of money, using the time of prosecutors, appointed judges, etc.
If a student had an once of sense he would want to be prosecuted under the standards that apply in criminal law.
Criminal prosecution should really be reserved for tangible crimes against persons and property.... not relatively "fluffy and intangible" losses due to intellectual property "violations"!
Intangible property rights are woven so deeply into the modern world - the world since 1492 - that it is difficult to know where to begin with an argument like this.
The short answer is that we all own intangibles, we all know these intangibles have value and that value must be protected against all comers. Your pension fund. Your health insurance. The corrupt Enron exec goes to jail. In China he would have been shot.
A starving college student sharing copies of his/her purchased collection of CDs wouldn't be pressured to "pay back" tens of THOUSANDS of dollars for doing so
The starving college kid with his cell phone, Mac PowerBook and $400 iPod. The kid sharing his music with 10 million or so of his closest friends on the P2P nets.
You cannot be a player in this game without substantial disposable income or outside subsidies - your "free" connection to the university LAN.
The settlement is a debt. Debts can be structured. It's a lesson worth learning.
Well, they have protected their IP righs by purchasing perpetual - and unconstitutional - copyrights from a Congress that is supposed to protect the public good.
Congress gets to define the "limited" term of copyright as anything less than "infinite."
This is a policy decision, a legislative decision. That is why the courts do not get involved and that is why calling Congress's actions "unconstitutional" leads absolutely nowhere.
Why can't you share like crazy, take out student loans, get sued, and then declare bankruptcy to clean the slate?
Bankruptcy doesn't clean the slate.
You'll be damn lucky if you can escape repayment of the student loan - damn lucky if you haven't exposed yourself to a criminal charge somewhere along the way.
But the civil judgment will stick to you forever. That much I guarantee.
How can the University be certain that they identified the correct students? If I were a student who is struggling just to pay tuition and rent, I'd panic.
So panic. Get it out of your system.
You have some tough choices to make and you need to start thinking about them now. Not when an offer of settlement becomes a summons into court.
US NetCasters will either move to a country without those laws OR
use an SSL tunnel to a server in a country without those laws.
The more complex and questionable the solution is for the broadcaster and the listener the less likely it is to generate the kind of numbers the rights agencies give a damn about.
The Geek is an odd duck. He doesn't trust his own government.
But he will trust an anonymous host 8,000 miles distant to protect him from civil and criminal prosecution in the states.
There's the issue. "designated" by some assholes in DC "as the sole supplier" = government mandated monopoly. Also, I'm damned certain this particular bit of regulation could be turned over fairly easily as ex post facto legislation which is expressly forbidden by our constitution
Since 1798 the ban on "ex post facto" laws has been interpreted to mean criminalization of prior conduct only. It is not a part of our civil law.
SoundExchange was given the exclusive right to collect and distribute royalties under the statutory license. It's the simplest solution for both the artist and broadcaster.
What about live music?
What if the artist says on "air" that he/she expect no compensation for their live performance?-What if it's a parody? I could go on, but how anal is this law?
The broadcaster doesn't want to deal with "What if?" He wants to cut a single royalty check and let SoundExchange worry about "What if?"
Lots of classical pieces performed by the universities' choirs and orchestras are put out there for free.
Free distribution doesn't mean that bandwidth is free or that performance rights are negligible.
Reading an eighteenth century text aloud will give you some hint of the problems you run into when you naively try to perform a classical work using sheet music in the public domain.
So what can we do as non-immigrant, non-permanent, legal, F1 visa-holding, tax-paying residents of the US? That is, besides voting with my wallet (which is not useful in this case)?
You could try supporting local public radio. College radio. Subscribing to a service like Live365. Voting with your wallet can be of help to them.
I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what you used to have to pay royalties for (Wikipedia says there was "no performance right" for artists, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, I remember performance-rights cases prior to '95
Performance rights have been a central issue for ASCAP since its founding in 1914:
Early on, Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough." THE ERA OF THE PLAYER PIANO (THE EARLY 1900S)
under the new fees, most small internet radio stations -- particularly those who have lots of channels tailored to particular musical tastes or genres -- just wouldn't be able to pay the bills.
I'm not entirely convinced that a webcaster with the bandwidth to deliver hundreds - thousands - of high-quality streams world-wide qualifies as "small."
Ex-post facto regulations are illegal under the Constitution...
From the Cornell Law School Wex:
Ex post facto
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, 9 and Art. 1 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).
The distinction between civil and criminal in ex post facto cases was made in Calder v.Bull, 1798.
But consider the consequences over time. With "hidden" virtualization Microsoft doesn't get to control the desktop. They lose one avenue to promote their brand. They don't get to push new products onto customers' desktops. They may lose control over the user's interface to the web
All this assumes that users - and support teams - are jumping for joy at the chance to maintain multiple operating systems, software libraries, and skill sets. To anyone but a Geek this can seem sadomasochistic.
God help them if virtualization does not remain transparent.
Slashdot Mirror
You begin with the simplest possible explanation.
To me, multiple game systems suggests a rat's nest of cables, drug store power strips. Systems resting on carpets or balanced precariously one on top of the other.
It's an interesting argument. But one the Geek uses selectively.
If harassment exposes you to civil and criminal penalties when your are off-line, why should your on-line conduct be immune from prosecution?
It remains a corrosive experience, all the more so because the assault is anonymous.
which is why Usenet dies and more protected environments thrive.
What else do they all have in common? The same customer.
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97.2%
female: 96.9% (2003 est.) World Factbook - Cuba
But Twain transformed pain and passion into art. He was a storyteller not a stand-up comic. "With Mark Twain You Can Get Away With Murder" An Interview With Hal Holbrook
Hint: there's this concept we have called 'innocent until proven guilty'.
"Innocent until proven guilty" establishes the ultimate burden of proof. It does not mean that the defendant can afford to leave significant questions unanswered.
For example:
[and borrowing a little from the Danielle Van Dam murder case}
The victim was your neighbor.
Thousands of images of child pornography and rape were found on your computer. Blood and hair from the missing girl were found in your R.V. Something about the size and shape of the child's head was smashed against the wall above your bed.
Where is the sleeping bag you bought at WalMart last week? What sudden impulse drove you to take a 200 mile run to nowhere out in the desert?
These are the kind of questions that left unanswered end in a verdict of "guilty as charged." Danielle Van Dam Murder Case
The better question to ask is why Nia becomes fair game.
It might be hard to take for those who knew the person, but the vast majority of the world didn't and shouldn't be expected to act as if they had.
I sometimes wonder about that. The loss of civility. The invasion of privacy.
There was a time when gallows humor was a privilege to be earned - by the fireman, the surgeon, the soldier on the line.
You can call it a paradox.
But it is what makes representative government work.
Most of us are not expert in politics. Most of us are not expert in legislation.
Mouse over to SoundExchange.com.
You'll find membership applications, FAQs, forms to download, and a search engine. Enter the name of your band and find out what they owe you.
The point of having a statutory license and a single administrator is that broadcasters can play damn near anything without ever being drawn into disputes over licensing and royalties.
This is a good thing for the independent artist, music outside the mainstream.
What about the opening musical jingle to my radio talk show?
Good god. Google returns 300,000 matches for the phrase "royalty free audio intros."
If a student had an once of sense he would want to be prosecuted under the standards that apply in criminal law.
Criminal prosecution should really be reserved for tangible crimes against persons and property .... not relatively "fluffy and intangible" losses due to intellectual property "violations"!
Intangible property rights are woven so deeply into the modern world - the world since 1492 - that it is difficult to know where to begin with an argument like this.
The short answer is that we all own intangibles, we all know these intangibles have value and that value must be protected against all comers. Your pension fund. Your health insurance. The corrupt Enron exec goes to jail. In China he would have been shot.
A starving college student sharing copies of his/her purchased collection of CDs wouldn't be pressured to "pay back" tens of THOUSANDS of dollars for doing so
The starving college kid with his cell phone, Mac PowerBook and $400 iPod. The kid sharing his music with 10 million or so of his closest friends on the P2P nets.
You cannot be a player in this game without substantial disposable income or outside subsidies - your "free" connection to the university LAN.
The settlement is a debt. Debts can be structured. It's a lesson worth learning.
Congress gets to define the "limited" term of copyright as anything less than "infinite."
This is a policy decision, a legislative decision. That is why the courts do not get involved and that is why calling Congress's actions "unconstitutional" leads absolutely nowhere.
Bankruptcy doesn't clean the slate.
You'll be damn lucky if you can escape repayment of the student loan - damn lucky if you haven't exposed yourself to a criminal charge somewhere along the way.
But the civil judgment will stick to you forever. That much I guarantee.
So panic. Get it out of your system.
You have some tough choices to make and you need to start thinking about them now. Not when an offer of settlement becomes a summons into court.
The more complex and questionable the solution is for the broadcaster and the listener the less likely it is to generate the kind of numbers the rights agencies give a damn about.
The Geek is an odd duck. He doesn't trust his own government.
But he will trust an anonymous host 8,000 miles distant to protect him from civil and criminal prosecution in the states.
Since 1798 the ban on "ex post facto" laws has been interpreted to mean criminalization of prior conduct only. It is not a part of our civil law.
SoundExchange was given the exclusive right to collect and distribute royalties under the statutory license. It's the simplest solution for both the artist and broadcaster.
What if the artist says on "air" that he/she expect no compensation for their live performance?-What if it's a parody? I could go on, but how anal is this law?
The broadcaster doesn't want to deal with "What if?" He wants to cut a single royalty check and let SoundExchange worry about "What if?"
Free distribution doesn't mean that bandwidth is free or that performance rights are negligible.
Reading an eighteenth century text aloud will give you some hint of the problems you run into when you naively try to perform a classical work using sheet music in the public domain.
You could try supporting local public radio. College radio. Subscribing to a service like Live365. Voting with your wallet can be of help to them.
Performance rights have been a central issue for ASCAP since its founding in 1914:
Early on, Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough." THE ERA OF THE PLAYER PIANO (THE EARLY 1900S)
under the new fees, most small internet radio stations -- particularly those who have lots of channels tailored to particular musical tastes or genres -- just wouldn't be able to pay the bills.
I'm not entirely convinced that a webcaster with the bandwidth to deliver hundreds - thousands - of high-quality streams world-wide qualifies as "small."
From the Cornell Law School Wex:
Ex post facto
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, 9 and Art. 1 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).
The distinction between civil and criminal in ex post facto cases was made in Calder v.Bull, 1798.
You can argue The Case Against Civil Ex Post Facto Laws, but the Supreme Court is not in the habit of overturning 200 years of settled law.
If you want decent production budgets then co-productions with other networks and world-wide syndication is the way to go.
You can own a lot of things, a house, a car, an airplane. That doesn't mean every modification you might want to make will be legal.
All this assumes that users - and support teams - are jumping for joy at the chance to maintain multiple operating systems, software libraries, and skill sets. To anyone but a Geek this can seem sadomasochistic.
God help them if virtualization does not remain transparent.