I've wondered about this before, and I think you're right. On the other hand, Disney wouldn't be spending so much money to keep it copyrighted if it thought this was the case.
The biggest complaint about the binding arbitration nonsense is that the company making the contract selects who will do the arbitration, and if they lose too many cases, fire them.
In essence, you have to take up the complaint you have with the company with the company itself, and they're hardly unbiased. And I'm sure they would require that the arbitrations happen on their time table, one on one only, no lawyers allowed on the customer's side.
The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?
The Democrats barely control Congress, and it takes more votes than they have to impeach and convict. The Republicans can block an impeachment bill from going through (and I thought they hated the fillibuster!).
The guy that drives a car that does the job for him and lives in a place that is safe, nice and meets needs can afford to lose 1/2 the household income and has almost no debt (Under $12,000 unsecured and not mortgage)
I think it's sad that we consider someone who has $12,000 in unsecured debt to have "almost no debt".
This isn't a court of law, it's the court of public opinion. We're not sending someone to jail, so we can use whatever burden of proof we choose.
Most of us have seen enough evidence to know that this sort of thing has been going on for quite a while, and now we have a law firm who has basically confessed. We've got all the evidence we need.
Well, yes, if you aggregate all Arabic-speaking countries as a single source, but don't aggregate, say, all the Spanish-speaking countries as a single source, you can argue that the #1 source is "Arab oil". If however, you aggregate all the Spanish-speaking countries, it becomes clear the #1 source is "Hispanic oil".
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product.
Except you can't return the product - you can't get your money back. They will only trade you for the same product.
The Slashdot article does not make it clear that the video was taken using NJTP property. On first reading, I thought that someone used their own camera to record this, and New Jersey was somehow claiming copyright on anything that happened on the turnpike.
Indeed. I used to watch a great deal more television than I do now. Still watch some shows, and I have a DVR. I set it to record a handful of shows, and it gets more stuff than I can even watch, so I end up deleting a lot of shows unwatched.
Well, except for this week when I got stuck at home with some sort of horrible allergy thing, but I digress.
The other funny thing about Fry's is that they usually have ten (10) or more cashiers waiting to process people in the checkout line, even when there are very few or no people standing in the checkout line. Meanwhile the return line is out the door and around the block with a single employee (usually somebody new who isn't very fast) taking returns and issuing receipts for refunds or exchanges.
A common strategy for many corporations. Remove as many obstacles as possible standing in the way of your customers giving you money, and put up many obstacles preventing them from getting it back.
Is it the intrinsic idea of copyright infringement that you find distasteful, or the fact that these people are breaking the law?
For instance, suppose India's or China's government decides to make copying software from other countries legal, or decides not to enforce the laws against it (which basically amounts to the same thing). Do they have a right to do so, or are they being totally immoral?
And if they decide to do so, should the US really put so much effort into persuading them otherwise?
So why not sell them Ubuntu, with an original CD, for $50, and offer support?
Probably because support for Ubuntu, when you're dealing with people who have never even heard of Linux before, would cost a good deal more than the $50 they were charging.
WRT length of copyright, I think it's totally out of hand. I'd like to see length of copyright shortened to the lifetime of the author or thirty years, whichever comes first.
Think about this for a second. You've got someone who creates an incredibly lucrative movie/TV show/song/program/whathaveyou. It makes an unbelievable amount of money for some company, and starts putting competitors out of business.
Now suppose this guy has, I don't know... maybe a piano fall on him, or gets pushed down some stairs or something. Now the company no longer has this asset and competitors can copy it at will.
Do you think anyone might have some incentive to make sure the aforementioned accident happens?
It's not so much environmental laws, it's the low wages which generate manual jobs in countries like China
Good! Then if we insist they follow our environmental regulations, it won't hurt them much at all, and we'll have less ecological destruction. I'm glad we're in agreement.
Silly Secret Service, don't you know suicide bombers are for kids? When they realize they can't do it remotely, someone will "martyr" themselves to get the job done. That's the insidiousness of Islamic fascists.
That's probably why anyone not on an approved list is kept far, far away from Bush's presence.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to release the source code, but we'd be free to reverse engineer the program to our hearts' content.
I've wondered about this before, and I think you're right. On the other hand, Disney wouldn't be spending so much money to keep it copyrighted if it thought this was the case.
The biggest complaint about the binding arbitration nonsense is that the company making the contract selects who will do the arbitration, and if they lose too many cases, fire them.
In essence, you have to take up the complaint you have with the company with the company itself, and they're hardly unbiased. And I'm sure they would require that the arbitrations happen on their time table, one on one only, no lawyers allowed on the customer's side.
Nope. Full scholarship.
This isn't a court of law, it's the court of public opinion. We're not sending someone to jail, so we can use whatever burden of proof we choose.
Most of us have seen enough evidence to know that this sort of thing has been going on for quite a while, and now we have a law firm who has basically confessed. We've got all the evidence we need.
nt
Say the company doesn't have that particular PDA, or that PDA type anymore (or simply claims not to). There goes your evidence.
I guess that means that there's some hope.
Civil court is a "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof. Meaning, you just have to barely tip the scales in your favor.
Prove it in court. I'd like to see you try.
Except you can't return the product - you can't get your money back. They will only trade you for the same product.
The Slashdot article does not make it clear that the video was taken using NJTP property. On first reading, I thought that someone used their own camera to record this, and New Jersey was somehow claiming copyright on anything that happened on the turnpike.
Indeed. I used to watch a great deal more television than I do now. Still watch some shows, and I have a DVR. I set it to record a handful of shows, and it gets more stuff than I can even watch, so I end up deleting a lot of shows unwatched.
Well, except for this week when I got stuck at home with some sort of horrible allergy thing, but I digress.
Just out of curiousity...
Is it the intrinsic idea of copyright infringement that you find distasteful, or the fact that these people are breaking the law?
For instance, suppose India's or China's government decides to make copying software from other countries legal, or decides not to enforce the laws against it (which basically amounts to the same thing). Do they have a right to do so, or are they being totally immoral?
And if they decide to do so, should the US really put so much effort into persuading them otherwise?
Now suppose this guy has, I don't know... maybe a piano fall on him, or gets pushed down some stairs or something. Now the company no longer has this asset and competitors can copy it at will.
Do you think anyone might have some incentive to make sure the aforementioned accident happens?
Bush has one of the best security measures against assassination ever:
Vice President Dick Cheney.
There's a term for this - the euphemism treadmill.