While currently there would be no cause of action, I feel buying from spammers should be "Contributory Spamming" and, just like contributory infrigement, should be punishable, at least on the civil side. It's the people who say "ooh herbal penis strengthening pills! Send me a dozen bottles" who are the real problem, even moreso, in my opinion, than the spammers. They should be held just as liable as those who send out 10,000,000 emails, because their one purchase is what makes it profitable and provides the incentive.
1. Buy from unsolicited email;
2. Become liable for millions of dollars;
3. No more spam.
Notice that there's no step "???" between 2 and 3....
CD's are just ads for tours. The "selling recorded sound to make lots of money" business model is over. No way to reclaim it. Bands would make lots of money on their tours were it not for the RIAA, who steals most of the money from them. The RIAA serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
The bottom line is advertisements are to be shared freely. The sellers of tours should want said advertisements to be shared freely. Do you Toyota cares if we download mpegs of their newest commercial? Of course not. It's to their benefit.
So, forget the compulsory licenses (who is going to pay them anyway?) and forget the old RIAA business model. The artists need to learn how to make money on tours by themselves. We should start a nonprofit to help them do this.
germany is just trying to butter up the US
on
DMCA, Auf Deutsch
·
· Score: 1
Germany is just trying to make uncle sam be its friend again, after that whole anti-iraq-war thingy. They figure the easist way to butter up our gov't is to pass restrictive copyright laws that hurt its citizenry.
I see a great friendship blooming...
They know that their friend who owns an internet filtering software company is blocking their opponent's website(s). They surely don't want us to find out who is doing this (lots) and what political websites are blocked (happens all the time).
Hopefully the new Iraqi government will learn from our mistakes and strive for free speech....
It's not so much that lawyers seized this new field as an evil plan to make money. Lawyers didn't make software patents, the government did. Lawyers enforced and defended software patents... and the lawyers for the companies enforcing the patents are typically better than those defending the accused infringer. Couple that with the fact that software patents are a very new and untried field of patent law... and couple that with the fact that no judges understand any of this shit at all... and the only ones who are going to benefit from this situation are the lawyers. And not trial lawyers... it will be the appellate lawyers who do the real work in this type of situation.
Lesson: when you feel like blaming a lawyer, blame congress.
Not only that, but it won't pass anyway. DMCA is here to stay, and it will just get worse. Eventually we'll just all have to leave the country and practice freedom from afar.
As long as homo sapiens can freely send emails the spam problem cannot be solved. It's an analog gap of sorts. The MPAA/RIAA have to accept that as long as a human can hear or see it, it can be copied. We have to accept that as long as email is free, there will be spam. Why waste money researching solutions when there are none? Give the money to starving turtles or something instead.
To examine only the song in today's market is idiotic. The vast majority of people who listen to top 40 radio is that the singer(s) of the song be hot. Gotta look like Brittany if you are a female or a backstreet boy if you are a male. No matter how thoroughly you examine a song, it won't tell you if people will jerk off to the singer.
This sounds like a case of obtaining a patent through fraud (they had to lie and mislead to procure such a ridiculous patent and somehow "slip one by" the Patent Trademark Office). Use of such a patent may constitute antitrust violations.
Liberals wanting handouts - what a surprise
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Liberals waste millions of dollars and then want handouts. What a shock.
The question isn't how much the cartoons will suck, but rather how much the cartoons (with necessary plot info/devices) will cause Episode 3 to suck. That's the issue here. I could give a rat's ass if the cartoons suck.
Yes that sums it up quite well, I'd just like to add that the next crappy movie will be even crappier because lucas will expect/demand everyone watch the cartoons to fully understand what's going on in Ep3.
What's worse than bad acting and bad dialogue? Plot holes that can only be filled by watching 2-3 minute cartoons on cable tv.
How many commercials can you stick in a 2-3 minute cartoon? Not too many. And commercials on the cartoon network don't generate tons of money anyway. The viewership (even with necessary star wars plot info being doled out) is not that large. Were they half-hour cartoons, I'd probably agree with you.
Yes, to put something as important as necessary plot information to the Star Wars franchise (not just to the next movie) on anything but primetime, network television (after "Friends" or something) is per se obscure. I would argue that even putting it on NBC right after "Friends" is still not good enough.
We have another choice aside from "watching" or "ignoring." We can complain and make our voices heard. I hope you don't feel the same way about copyright issues (e.g. cave in to the RIAA/MPAA or just ignore them).
How many muslims will it take to blow it up?
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Wow that's a big plane. It will surely take more than one Muslim to blow it up. Or maybe not - maybe it's so bit that it would be easy to hit with a shoulder-launched SAM. Great.
99% of people (or even Star Wars fans) are not going to watch the cartoon network to see 2-3 minute cartoons which are apparently necessary for Episode III to make sense. Yes, I'm sure that Lucas will stick all the cartoons on a $24 DVD for sale a week or so before Ep3 comes out, but that aside, this is simply idiotic. If he doesn't want to film the clone wars, or other necessary plot devices, that's fine (a shame, but fine) - just allude to them in the movie. Have a character talk about it and fill us in. But 2-3 minute cartoons on an obscure cable channel? What is Lucas smoking?
The supreme court has made it clear that there is a right to privacy (see Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Conneticuit, Doe v. Duling). Of course all constitutional rights - even the exress ones like freedom of religion - have their limits. If your religion says thou shall fuck 5 year old little boys or sell heroin, tough luck; freedom of religion won't keep you out of jail. If the government has a compelling interest in regulating the activity, and those regulations are narrowly tailored, then the right to privacy (or any other constitutional right) will be defeated in said circumstance.
It's also important to note that just b/c the constitution doesn't expressly say "the people have X right" doesn't mean X right doesn't exist. The 9th Amendment was put in there to prevent a expressio unius est exclusio alterus reading of the Constitution.
This bill is all nice and fluffy, but it will be completely meaningless if UCITA ever passes. Let's get our congresspeople working on nipping UCITA in the bud before they start dreaming up other, less meaningful solutions to consumer-rights issues.
is this posted in the wrong thread, or are you trying to hint that fair use protects people from securities fraud? I hope it's not the latter, because that would be one of the single dumbest things I have ever heard in my life.
Of course MS sells hotmail addy's to spammers. So why are they suing themselves (or rather, their customers)? To create the illusion of being your anti-spam friend. Free good press. Yay now MS is on the good side! Hardly. This will be the last you ever hear of this "suing the spammers" case. MS wins both ways. They make money selling the hotmail addresses, and they look good "suing" the spammers.
Slashdot Mirror
While currently there would be no cause of action, I feel buying from spammers should be "Contributory Spamming" and, just like contributory infrigement, should be punishable, at least on the civil side. It's the people who say "ooh herbal penis strengthening pills! Send me a dozen bottles" who are the real problem, even moreso, in my opinion, than the spammers. They should be held just as liable as those who send out 10,000,000 emails, because their one purchase is what makes it profitable and provides the incentive.
1. Buy from unsolicited email;
2. Become liable for millions of dollars;
3. No more spam.
Notice that there's no step "???" between 2 and 3....
CD's are just ads for tours. The "selling recorded sound to make lots of money" business model is over. No way to reclaim it. Bands would make lots of money on their tours were it not for the RIAA, who steals most of the money from them. The RIAA serves no useful purpose whatsoever. The bottom line is advertisements are to be shared freely. The sellers of tours should want said advertisements to be shared freely. Do you Toyota cares if we download mpegs of their newest commercial? Of course not. It's to their benefit. So, forget the compulsory licenses (who is going to pay them anyway?) and forget the old RIAA business model. The artists need to learn how to make money on tours by themselves. We should start a nonprofit to help them do this.
Germany is just trying to make uncle sam be its friend again, after that whole anti-iraq-war thingy. They figure the easist way to butter up our gov't is to pass restrictive copyright laws that hurt its citizenry. I see a great friendship blooming...
They know that their friend who owns an internet filtering software company is blocking their opponent's website(s). They surely don't want us to find out who is doing this (lots) and what political websites are blocked (happens all the time). Hopefully the new Iraqi government will learn from our mistakes and strive for free speech....
It's not so much that lawyers seized this new field as an evil plan to make money. Lawyers didn't make software patents, the government did. Lawyers enforced and defended software patents... and the lawyers for the companies enforcing the patents are typically better than those defending the accused infringer. Couple that with the fact that software patents are a very new and untried field of patent law ... and couple that with the fact that no judges understand any of this shit at all... and the only ones who are going to benefit from this situation are the lawyers. And not trial lawyers... it will be the appellate lawyers who do the real work in this type of situation.
Lesson: when you feel like blaming a lawyer, blame congress.
I said eventually... not "right this second."
Not only that, but it won't pass anyway. DMCA is here to stay, and it will just get worse. Eventually we'll just all have to leave the country and practice freedom from afar.
As long as homo sapiens can freely send emails the spam problem cannot be solved. It's an analog gap of sorts. The MPAA/RIAA have to accept that as long as a human can hear or see it, it can be copied. We have to accept that as long as email is free, there will be spam. Why waste money researching solutions when there are none? Give the money to starving turtles or something instead.
Quick, run to the Patent office so we can stifle any potential innovation to come of this.
To examine only the song in today's market is idiotic. The vast majority of people who listen to top 40 radio is that the singer(s) of the song be hot. Gotta look like Brittany if you are a female or a backstreet boy if you are a male. No matter how thoroughly you examine a song, it won't tell you if people will jerk off to the singer.
This sounds like a case of obtaining a patent through fraud (they had to lie and mislead to procure such a ridiculous patent and somehow "slip one by" the Patent Trademark Office). Use of such a patent may constitute antitrust violations.
Liberals waste millions of dollars and then want handouts. What a shock.
This thread says "they say X is happening, but X clearly is not happening." How is that news?
The question isn't how much the cartoons will suck, but rather how much the cartoons (with necessary plot info/devices) will cause Episode 3 to suck. That's the issue here. I could give a rat's ass if the cartoons suck.
Yes that sums it up quite well, I'd just like to add that the next crappy movie will be even crappier because lucas will expect/demand everyone watch the cartoons to fully understand what's going on in Ep3.
What's worse than bad acting and bad dialogue? Plot holes that can only be filled by watching 2-3 minute cartoons on cable tv.
How many commercials can you stick in a 2-3 minute cartoon? Not too many. And commercials on the cartoon network don't generate tons of money anyway. The viewership (even with necessary star wars plot info being doled out) is not that large. Were they half-hour cartoons, I'd probably agree with you.
Yes, to put something as important as necessary plot information to the Star Wars franchise (not just to the next movie) on anything but primetime, network television (after "Friends" or something) is per se obscure. I would argue that even putting it on NBC right after "Friends" is still not good enough.
We have another choice aside from "watching" or "ignoring." We can complain and make our voices heard. I hope you don't feel the same way about copyright issues (e.g. cave in to the RIAA/MPAA or just ignore them).
Wow that's a big plane. It will surely take more than one Muslim to blow it up. Or maybe not - maybe it's so bit that it would be easy to hit with a shoulder-launched SAM. Great.
99% of people (or even Star Wars fans) are not going to watch the cartoon network to see 2-3 minute cartoons which are apparently necessary for Episode III to make sense. Yes, I'm sure that Lucas will stick all the cartoons on a $24 DVD for sale a week or so before Ep3 comes out, but that aside, this is simply idiotic. If he doesn't want to film the clone wars, or other necessary plot devices, that's fine (a shame, but fine) - just allude to them in the movie. Have a character talk about it and fill us in. But 2-3 minute cartoons on an obscure cable channel? What is Lucas smoking?
check out http://www.activusa.com/
The supreme court has made it clear that there is a right to privacy (see Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Conneticuit, Doe v. Duling). Of course all constitutional rights - even the exress ones like freedom of religion - have their limits. If your religion says thou shall fuck 5 year old little boys or sell heroin, tough luck; freedom of religion won't keep you out of jail. If the government has a compelling interest in regulating the activity, and those regulations are narrowly tailored, then the right to privacy (or any other constitutional right) will be defeated in said circumstance.
It's also important to note that just b/c the constitution doesn't expressly say "the people have X right" doesn't mean X right doesn't exist. The 9th Amendment was put in there to prevent a expressio unius est exclusio alterus reading of the Constitution.
This bill is all nice and fluffy, but it will be completely meaningless if UCITA ever passes. Let's get our congresspeople working on nipping UCITA in the bud before they start dreaming up other, less meaningful solutions to consumer-rights issues.
yes, "He's manipulating people by telling them bum stock tips..." BY SENDING OUT MILLIONS OF SPAM EMAILS. moron.
is this posted in the wrong thread, or are you trying to hint that fair use protects people from securities fraud? I hope it's not the latter, because that would be one of the single dumbest things I have ever heard in my life.
Of course MS sells hotmail addy's to spammers. So why are they suing themselves (or rather, their customers)? To create the illusion of being your anti-spam friend. Free good press. Yay now MS is on the good side! Hardly. This will be the last you ever hear of this "suing the spammers" case. MS wins both ways. They make money selling the hotmail addresses, and they look good "suing" the spammers.