Just because none of the entertainment companies I represent offer these forms of entertainment at a price the marker is willing to pay or in a format that the public desires does not mean I am not entitled to vast sums of money!
Just because you want the movie doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to produce it. Just because you don't want to pay for the movie doesn't mean you are entitled to a free ride on the backs of those who do.
Just because you think a name band should make a living through live performance and on-site merchandising doesn't mean that I should have to pay $200 per person for tickets, parking, and product.
In the unlikely event that a band can find a suitable concert venue within a three hour drive.
name a product, any product, as potentially lethal as a prescription drug that is not introduced into the market as an incremental enhancement. that does not build on trust in the existing solution.
A treatment is only an acceptable solution in the short term.
I'll take the treatment that keeps my boy alive until a more effective alternative can be found.
The vaccine that protects my girl from cervical cancer beginning today.
Basic research isn't a search for a cure. Basic research is an attempt to understand the disease. The purpose of a pharmaceutical house is to translate research into action. To deliver something significant and helpful in the here-and-now.
How many diseases do you know that have been "cured?"
That have been eradicated from this earth by anything other than a vaccine?
The more you do, the harder it is to do it elegantly.
Users haven't the slightest interest in talk of an application's elegance or bloat---and they have even less desire to crack open the hood to take a look inside.
If details can be buried, then, by god, by all means, bury them deep.
This is what draws users to Microsoft and not what drives them away.
the deepepast implication is that drug companies are incentivised to treat and not cure...
you will pardon me, I trust, for seeing more benefits in an effective treatment for childhood leukemia than in a phantom cure that won't be available until decades after my kid is dead.
With the kind of laws regulating this industry, you wouldn't even be able to research *aspirin* today, let alone have it approved or sold.
with deeper and more formal research and testing. we might not have had to wait 100 years to learn that aspirin
(a) is not appropriate for everyone and
(b) that aspirin has other, very significant, medical uses than as a mild painkiller.
in the nineteenth century you could sell anything over-the-counter.
that it was addictive and dangerous didn't matter. that it was more potent than the gin mill's rot-gut whiskey didn't matter. that it promised cures for everything from tuberculosis to cancer didn't matter.
american medicine was quack medicine.
the real, meaningful, advances in pharmaceuticals were coming from abroad.
Until you can get an animal to sign a legal document confirming their behavior means what their trainer claims it means, you have just not shown anything.
The courts do not make decisions based on certainties, the unknown and ultimate truths.
Evidence isn't truth. Evidence is a body of facts from which reasonable conclusions can be drawn.
Evidence is not excluded simply because it is not directly obtainable through human senses.
Dogs can be trained to follow a trail. To sniff out drugs. To search for the dead.
How about game companies recalling a product if they need to release a patch on the same day of the release?
How about we don't bump up the price of games to cover the expenses of a pointless recall? How about we don't piss off the retailer willing to stock games that aren't as profitable as Grand Theft Auto?
fog blurs your view of the semaphore. the pidgeon is caught in a head wind. the lines go down in a storm.
communication can never be instantaneous so long as the speed of light is finite. e-mail may move faster than the post rider. but the network remains the carrier, the network is not the message.
Is an email more like a telegraph message or a letter? Neither; it isn't enough like either to reason about them based on telegraph messages or letters.
a telegram was binary encoded text transmitted by wire. it could, almost from the beginning. be stored --- punch-holed -- into thin paper ribbons for delayed transmission or recovery.
there were networks, there were servers, in some recognizable form.
2. An animal can determine whether or not there's a 4th amendment allowance to search me.
Would you care to guess how long, how many decades, how many centuries, the "testimony" of a dog has been admissable in court? In most legal traditions, I suspect the answer is "From the Beginning."
To resolve questions of ownership. To track a thief.
The decison belongs to the officer. But he is not obliged to ignore the opinion of a competently trained animal.
With old-style non-electronic messages, there is no distinction between the contents of the letter and the physical letter itself. Hundreds of years of laws and general ethical principles were written based on the assumption this will always be true.
The telegraph was introduced in 1844.
The French began building a network using semaphores -- optical telegraphy -- in the 1790s.
But the fundamental abstraction of the message from the media is surely far older: all you really need is a relay chain, animate or machine, and some sort of temporary and back-up storage.
--- for the days when there is no sun, no wind, and the falcon ate your bird.
It is naive to think that these questions are novel and that they cannot be answered ---have not been answered --- within the framework of the existing legal system.
Even if your e-mail is stored on another individual's computer seized under a search warrant, the government cannot use this information as evidence.
From the U.K., but short and to the point:
Email content is treated in the same way as verbal and written expressions and statements and is admissible in a court of law. It is a common misconception that email messages carry less weight than letters on headed notepaper.
The problems are only likely to arise if your opponent disputes the authenticity of what you produce. The same applies to traditional letters - i.e. it is only when their authenticity is questioned that proof becomes a problem.
If the authenticity of an email produced in court is questioned, be prepared to provide evidence of the audit trail showing where the email originated and the route by which it was sent to your computer. The audit trail would show if there had been any opportunity for someone to interfere with the email as they are usually sent between several servers before they reach their destination.
Email have raised problems for the courts. In the past, evidence would invariably take the form of an original signed document and if that was not available then a copy of that signed document could be substituted. The signature would be the key to proving the authenticity of the document (of course, the argument can still be made that the signature is a fake). The difference with email is that there is no such thing as an 'original' since the print-out is the end result of a technological process. It is the audit trail showing that process which can be used to persuade the court of the print-out's authenticity if this is challenged by your opponent.
Forensic computing services can help if it becomes necessary to prove that a hard copy of an email produced in court is genuine.
many of the great works in history are based in this plagiarism, just look at Shakespeare. This trend has just continued to grow. Ownership should be disregarded, and things should be placed into the public sphere for the enjoyment of all the public. Of course, this will never occur, as capitalism destroys this. Ahh the wonders of idealism...
Not one of Shakespeare's plays was published in his lifetime. They were the prime assets of his theatrical companies. His livelihood.
People will continue to buy DVD's because they're cheaper.
How much more (or less) expensive than the first-generation DVD player is the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player? Adjusted for inflation.
Check the prices at Amazon.com. The A-list titles begin at $20. Check sales of HDTV and the XBox 360 at your big box retailer. Fast-forward to the $200 HD add-on for the XBox and sales of the PS3 in December 2007.
The geek may place the right bet on sales of the Wii console, but he is often a poor judge of trends in the home market.
Think of the DMCA as the equivalent of the GPL's "liberty or death" clause, applied to the RIAA's content. The DMCA ensures that non-free content will die, leaving Free content to take its place.
I am thinking.
I am thinking that in ten years I haven't heard one word spoken about the GPL outside the insular domains of techie forums like Slashdot. That the "liberty or death" rhetoric so freely spun out here has no resonance with end users.
Farewell, Napster. Hello, iTunes for Windows.
I am thinking that Free content is as unlikely to displace Batman, James Bond, Harry Potter and Captain Jack Sparrow in the public's affections as I am to win the tri-state lottery.
"Green means good" is something that is easily hammered into the heads of the l^Husers who'll be dumb enough to use IE7.
"Green means good" when you are running McAfee SiteAdvisor for Firefox.
The solution for small business will be to market through a strong co-op or an established corporate partner like Amazon or eBay. The benefits are obvious and a phishing filter can't do much more than push things along a little faster.
In the USA, business don't literally vote but they do control the politicians through a corrupt political process.
Adolescent nonsense.
Texas votes Big Oil because Texas is Big Oil.
Kansas votes Agri-Business because Kansas is Agri-Business.
Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, and Orlando vote Big Media because Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, and Orlando are Big Media.
The geek in politics wastes his time and energies in talk of corruption and conspiracies and ignores the economic interests and realites that drive voters to a candidate on his first run for city council.
I'm not giving permission for any of those things, just telling you where shit is at.
If your business is steering clients to the whorehouse, permission to fuck is implied.
It is the business of a judge to strip away arguments that are superficial or fraudulent.
There is a concerted effort to turn the internet into cable television.
The Geek lost control of the Internet about ten years back.
The commons, the masses, shapes new technologies to serve its own interests and values. The Geek gets left behind.
Radio in 1820 belongs to the hobbyist and engineer. In 1930 it is fifteen minutes of "Amos 'n Andy."
I will take the odds that the proto-Geek who invented the wheel began whining about how the world had gone to hell from the day he noticed his neighbors' carts beginning to shove him off the road---and that he hasn't shut up since.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you want the movie doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to produce it. Just because you don't want to pay for the movie doesn't mean you are entitled to a free ride on the backs of those who do.
Just because you think a name band should make a living through live performance and on-site merchandising doesn't mean that I should have to pay $200 per person for tickets, parking, and product.
In the unlikely event that a band can find a suitable concert venue within a three hour drive.
and this comes as a surprise?
name a product, any product, as potentially lethal as a prescription drug that is not introduced into the market as an incremental enhancement. that does not build on trust in the existing solution.
I'll take the treatment that keeps my boy alive until a more effective alternative can be found.
The vaccine that protects my girl from cervical cancer beginning today.
Basic research isn't a search for a cure. Basic research is an attempt to understand the disease. The purpose of a pharmaceutical house is to translate research into action. To deliver something significant and helpful in the here-and-now.
How many diseases do you know that have been "cured?"
That have been eradicated from this earth by anything other than a vaccine?
Users haven't the slightest interest in talk of an application's elegance or bloat---and they have even less desire to crack open the hood to take a look inside. If details can be buried, then, by god, by all means, bury them deep.
This is what draws users to Microsoft and not what drives them away.
the quack contributed nothing.
you will pardon me, I trust, for seeing more benefits in an effective treatment for childhood leukemia than in a phantom cure that won't be available until decades after my kid is dead.
quacks kill.
the arsenic wafer said to relieve "female discomforts."
and sometimes fed, one suspects, to the male who was responsible for same.
the typical patent drug of the 1890s was a potent mix of alcohol and opium. given in stiff doses to both infants and elders.
with deeper and more formal research and testing. we might not have had to wait 100 years to learn that aspirin
(a) is not appropriate for everyone and
(b) that aspirin has other, very significant, medical uses than as a mild painkiller.
in the nineteenth century you could sell anything over-the-counter.
that it was addictive and dangerous didn't matter. that it was more potent than the gin mill's rot-gut whiskey didn't matter. that it promised cures for everything from tuberculosis to cancer didn't matter.
american medicine was quack medicine.
the real, meaningful, advances in pharmaceuticals were coming from abroad.
You did notice that "testify" was in quotes?
Until you can get an animal to sign a legal document confirming their behavior means what their trainer claims it means, you have just not shown anything.
The courts do not make decisions based on certainties, the unknown and ultimate truths.
Evidence isn't truth. Evidence is a body of facts from which reasonable conclusions can be drawn. Evidence is not excluded simply because it is not directly obtainable through human senses.
Dogs can be trained to follow a trail. To sniff out drugs. To search for the dead.
do the phrases "plea bargain" or "unindicted co-conspirator" ring a bell?
there may be many reasons why other members of the ring can't or won't be prosecuted, but that doesn't give you a get out of jail free card.
How about we don't bump up the price of games to cover the expenses of a pointless recall? How about we don't piss off the retailer willing to stock games that aren't as profitable as Grand Theft Auto?
Well, that is the problem, isn't it?
Until your correspondents sign on to your program, no one can read your mail.
not historically. not practically.
fog blurs your view of the semaphore. the pidgeon is caught in a head wind. the lines go down in a storm.
communication can never be instantaneous so long as the speed of light is finite. e-mail may move faster than the post rider. but the network remains the carrier, the network is not the message.
Is an email more like a telegraph message or a letter? Neither; it isn't enough like either to reason about them based on telegraph messages or letters.
a telegram was binary encoded text transmitted by wire. it could, almost from the beginning. be stored --- punch-holed -- into thin paper ribbons for delayed transmission or recovery.
there were networks, there were servers, in some recognizable form.
to me, this looks like e-mail.
Would you care to guess how long, how many decades, how many centuries, the "testimony" of a dog has been admissable in court? In most legal traditions, I suspect the answer is "From the Beginning."
To resolve questions of ownership. To track a thief.
The decison belongs to the officer. But he is not obliged to ignore the opinion of a competently trained animal.
The telegraph was introduced in 1844.
The French began building a network using semaphores -- optical telegraphy -- in the 1790s.
But the fundamental abstraction of the message from the media is surely far older: all you really need is a relay chain, animate or machine, and some sort of temporary and back-up storage.
--- for the days when there is no sun, no wind, and the falcon ate your bird.
It is naive to think that these questions are novel and that they cannot be answered ---have not been answered --- within the framework of the existing legal system.
From the U.K., but short and to the point:
Email content is treated in the same way as verbal and written expressions and statements and is admissible in a court of law. It is a common misconception that email messages carry less weight than letters on headed notepaper.
The problems are only likely to arise if your opponent disputes the authenticity of what you produce. The same applies to traditional letters - i.e. it is only when their authenticity is questioned that proof becomes a problem.
If the authenticity of an email produced in court is questioned, be prepared to provide evidence of the audit trail showing where the email originated and the route by which it was sent to your computer. The audit trail would show if there had been any opportunity for someone to interfere with the email as they are usually sent between several servers before they reach their destination.
Email have raised problems for the courts. In the past, evidence would invariably take the form of an original signed document and if that was not available then a copy of that signed document could be substituted. The signature would be the key to proving the authenticity of the document (of course, the argument can still be made that the signature is a fake). The difference with email is that there is no such thing as an 'original' since the print-out is the end result of a technological process. It is the audit trail showing that process which can be used to persuade the court of the print-out's authenticity if this is challenged by your opponent.
Forensic computing services can help if it becomes necessary to prove that a hard copy of an email produced in court is genuine.
Email as court evidence
Not one of Shakespeare's plays was published in his lifetime. They were the prime assets of his theatrical companies. His livelihood.
How much more (or less) expensive than the first-generation DVD player is the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player? Adjusted for inflation.
Check the prices at Amazon.com. The A-list titles begin at $20. Check sales of HDTV and the XBox 360 at your big box retailer. Fast-forward to the $200 HD add-on for the XBox and sales of the PS3 in December 2007.
The geek may place the right bet on sales of the Wii console, but he is often a poor judge of trends in the home market.
I am thinking.
I am thinking that in ten years I haven't heard one word spoken about the GPL outside the insular domains of techie forums like Slashdot. That the "liberty or death" rhetoric so freely spun out here has no resonance with end users.
Farewell, Napster. Hello, iTunes for Windows.
I am thinking that Free content is as unlikely to displace Batman, James Bond, Harry Potter and Captain Jack Sparrow in the public's affections as I am to win the tri-state lottery.
Since when did the mass (consumer) market begin buying product from a VAR? Which is the target audience here.
"Green means good" when you are running McAfee SiteAdvisor for Firefox.
The solution for small business will be to market through a strong co-op or an established corporate partner like Amazon or eBay. The benefits are obvious and a phishing filter can't do much more than push things along a little faster.
Adolescent nonsense.
Texas votes Big Oil because Texas is Big Oil.
Kansas votes Agri-Business because Kansas is Agri-Business.
Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, and Orlando vote Big Media because Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, and Orlando are Big Media.
The geek in politics wastes his time and energies in talk of corruption and conspiracies and ignores the economic interests and realites that drive voters to a candidate on his first run for city council.
If your business is steering clients to the whorehouse, permission to fuck is implied. It is the business of a judge to strip away arguments that are superficial or fraudulent.
The Geek lost control of the Internet about ten years back.
The commons, the masses, shapes new technologies to serve its own interests and values. The Geek gets left behind.
Radio in 1820 belongs to the hobbyist and engineer. In 1930 it is fifteen minutes of "Amos 'n Andy."
I will take the odds that the proto-Geek who invented the wheel began whining about how the world had gone to hell from the day he noticed his neighbors' carts beginning to shove him off the road---and that he hasn't shut up since.
so replace the phrase "copyrighted mp3s" with "mp3s you do not have a right the distribute."
in plain English, the mainstream titles whose distribution rights you damn well know belong to the major artists and labels.
precision in language is not the Slashdot norm. when there is a take-down, we all know the reason why.
and it isn't because the content of your site was "copy-left."