I just doesn't matter. If I sold a hammer and called it a Hammer, then tried to sue Sears for infringing my common-law trademark for selling hammers, I'd lose.
Both the words hammer and windows are mere descriptions and cannot be enforced as trademarks. That's why Microsoft lost in its attempt to obtain an injunction in the US.
I have no idea why they are winning in Europe. It appears they have different standards. Maybe I should start selling my Hammer there!
Exactly what is your address? I feel like taking a trip and need someplace to crash for free. I'll make various demands for stuff and I'll expect you to meet every one. I won't call before I'll get there, and I'll be sure to have no means of leaving that doesn't involve you spending money.
Wow, that's lazy, you waste about 8 minutes a show rather than spend 10 seconds picking up a remote?!
I record nearly everything I watch, and keeping the remote on my lap is not difficult. The only show I watch in "real time" is football, but I usually pause that for about 30 minutes before I start watching it so I can fast forward through the commericals.
I predicted the death of local affilates years ago, and that was even before the DVR was invented. It's a simple fact that local broadcast stations will become useless and irrelevant.
When the overwhelming majority of viewers access TV via cable or satellite, why do we need thousands of little broadcast stations sitting around?
Within ten years, the vast majority of broadcast stations will be gone.
The US Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal (the case that held that recording off the air TV shows was legal under the fair use doctrine) only held that time-shifting was legal. It never addressed skipping commercials. In other words, the major TV networks might actually have a legal basis to stop the sale and use of DVR devices.
You know what the RIAA would do if they were in the same predicament that the networks are in, they'd go to Congress and get new laws passed and they'd sue everyone in sight. Heck, we all know that the RIAA would even sue individual TIVO owners.
Why are the networks taking such a lackadaisical view to the dangers presented by DVRs?! Do they know something we don't? E.g., are they waiting for broadcast flags to take care of the problem? Or are they just ignorant of the problem and are hoping it'll go away? Sort of like what the music industry did until Napster became widespread.
I'm not saying it'll work in reducing spam. That's certainly debatable. I was just resonding to the assertion that the tax itself was impossible. I reponded that such a tax could work as well as any other tax scheme the government has created.
Under your view income tax would be unworkable. Would I get taxed for mowing my neighbor's lawn? Would I get taxed for collecting deposit bottles on the side of the road? Would I get taxed for the money I get selling crack?
Under you view sales tax would be unworkable. Would I have to pay it if I only shopped at garage sales? Would I have to pay it if I bought everything out of state? Would I have to pay it if I only bartered and traded?
You're argument is that because there are some circumstances where tax could not be collected, the entire tax system would be impossible. You're clearly wrong. There could easily be a system in place where ISPs track email usage and send that information to the state. Sure, there would be exceptions, there are ALWAYS exceptions in real life, but over all the system would work.
You should be able to walk into Wal-Mart, request the songs you want, and have them burn them for you right there. For the millions of computer newbies out there, it'd do great.
I recently read an article that stated that all US music sales are dwarfed by just the sales of Wal-Mart by 20 times.
Considering the size of Wal-Mart, and considering that it never pays wholesale for anything, I'd be VERY worried if I were the RIAA. They're about to be bulldozed.
One last thing, in the US copyright infringement is NOT considered theft. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
I'm not saying that copyright infringment is legal, I'm merely saying that it is not theft, despite all the propoganda from the RIAA and MPAA.
It all boils down to possession. If you steal a car, the owner of the car is deprived use of it. However, if you merely make a copy of someone's car, he or she can still use it.
I work in a Court every day, and about every 6 months we sentence someone who killed someone close to him merely because he happened to have a gun on him. None of those murders would have taken place if the gun wasn't there.
I'm not anti-gun, I'm just saying that a hand gun, which has the sole purpose to kill another person, is much more harmful than one illegally downloaded movie.
"This issue is not about bringing any harm to society."
But that is the issue. We make laws which prohibit certain behavior because the behavior causes harm. That's why murdering someone is a life offense, while it's perfectly legal to wear brown socks. One is a harm, while the other is not.
I have no doubt that massive illegal downloading of music and movies is harmful to society. However, I simply disagree with the amount of harm.
If you add up all the sales of the ENTIRE US music industry, that total is dwarved by 20 times by the sales of just Wal-Mart alone.
The music industry is just a minor blip in our economy. Thus, even if the music industry collapsed due to illegal downloading, there would not be a lot of harm. Considering that more people download music illegally than voted in the last election, would society really be better off if all of those millions of people received three year prison terms?
You're utterly missing the point. Is having one illegal movie on your hard drive worthy of three years in prison?
It's about proportionality. In most states, first degree murder is a life offense. We consider murder a serious crime. On the other hand, driving over the speed limit will generally get you only a ticket.
In Michigan, carrying a concealed weapon without a license is a two year crime. Do you really think that having one movie on your hard drive is greater harm to society than someone illegally concealing a handgun?!
I think one of the problems with music nowadays is that CDs contain too much of it. In the old days artists released 10 good songs per album. But now CDs contain way too much filler. And even if every song was great, who has time to listen to 80 minutes of it?!
First, I'm an attorney in Michigan who works daily in the courts.
Second, you said that "you must represent yourself." Who is the "yourself" in a corporation?! The CEO, the primary stock holder, the janitor?! It's a simple fact that none of those people could represent the corporation because they'd be practicing law without a license.
While you can represent yourself regardless of whether you're an attorney, you can ONLY represent someone else if you're an attorney. Thus, any corporation would have to be represented by counsel.
The Court I work at has defaulted corporations before because the owners were under the erroneous belief that they could represent the corporation himself. Unless they are attornys, they cannot.
Lastly, the information in the link is erroneous. It may be true that when individuals sue each other a court could forbid lawyers, e.g., minor property disputes, but if a coporation is sued, it can only be represented by counsel.
"SCO is not allowed to use a lawyer in small claims court."
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it's utterly wrong. In the US individuals can either hire attorneys are represent themselves. However, corporations can only be represented by counsel. Thus, SCO, could only be represented by an attorney.
Mmm... IBM requested proof of SCO's claims. That's how our system of "justice" works, the plaintiff files a case then proves it by providing evidence.
In alleged response to IBM's request, SCO filed a bunch of its own subpoenas. Exactly how is that "firing back"?! The only way SCO could "fire back" is by responding to IBM's request, i.e., PROVE ITS CASE!!!
SCO's subpoenas are nothing but a delay tactic. It's an attempt to avoid firing back as long as possible. SCO is not ready to let the world know it has absolutely no proof.
For any SCO supporters out there, ask yourself this: If SCO had evidence, why is it STILL hiding it?! An author cannot sue another author for plagiarism, but refuse to tell exactly what was plagiarized!
There is a rumor that Xbox2 games (or whatever it'll be called) will not be backwards compatible with the Xbox.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12587
On the other hand, Sony claims that the PS3 (or whatever it'll be called) will be backwards compatible all the way back to the PS1. In other words, right out of the bat the PS3 will have more games available than the Xbox2 ever will have.
My question: Will this kill the Xbox2?! Is the ability to play all your old games that important to gamers?
Slashdot Mirror
That after all these years, Huey Lewis would be proved right?!
I just doesn't matter. If I sold a hammer and called it a Hammer, then tried to sue Sears for infringing my common-law trademark for selling hammers, I'd lose.
Both the words hammer and windows are mere descriptions and cannot be enforced as trademarks. That's why Microsoft lost in its attempt to obtain an injunction in the US.
I have no idea why they are winning in Europe. It appears they have different standards. Maybe I should start selling my Hammer there!
Yeah, that's a great solution, but then the government couldn't give billions of dollars to its corporate friends.
Exactly what is your address? I feel like taking a trip and need someplace to crash for free. I'll make various demands for stuff and I'll expect you to meet every one. I won't call before I'll get there, and I'll be sure to have no means of leaving that doesn't involve you spending money.
Thanks!
I sure wish I had some mod points! I couldn't agree with you more.
...don't expect people to help you accomplish it!
Instead of buying preformatted discs consumers are going to have to take the extra time and format them themselves. Thanks Microsoft!
(Gee, I always wondered why hard drives don't come formatted, but now I do!)
If some moron installs spyware, why should Dell waste its time telling him (or her) how to fix it?!
Wow, that's lazy, you waste about 8 minutes a show rather than spend 10 seconds picking up a remote?!
I record nearly everything I watch, and keeping the remote on my lap is not difficult. The only show I watch in "real time" is football, but I usually pause that for about 30 minutes before I start watching it so I can fast forward through the commericals.
I predicted the death of local affilates years ago, and that was even before the DVR was invented. It's a simple fact that local broadcast stations will become useless and irrelevant.
When the overwhelming majority of viewers access TV via cable or satellite, why do we need thousands of little broadcast stations sitting around?
Within ten years, the vast majority of broadcast stations will be gone.
The US Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal (the case that held that recording off the air TV shows was legal under the fair use doctrine) only held that time-shifting was legal. It never addressed skipping commercials. In other words, the major TV networks might actually have a legal basis to stop the sale and use of DVR devices.
You know what the RIAA would do if they were in the same predicament that the networks are in, they'd go to Congress and get new laws passed and they'd sue everyone in sight. Heck, we all know that the RIAA would even sue individual TIVO owners.
Why are the networks taking such a lackadaisical view to the dangers presented by DVRs?! Do they know something we don't? E.g., are they waiting for broadcast flags to take care of the problem? Or are they just ignorant of the problem and are hoping it'll go away? Sort of like what the music industry did until Napster became widespread.
Until the software and hardware is totally open for scrutiny, the answer it no.
I'm not saying it'll work in reducing spam. That's certainly debatable. I was just resonding to the assertion that the tax itself was impossible. I reponded that such a tax could work as well as any other tax scheme the government has created.
Under your view income tax would be unworkable. Would I get taxed for mowing my neighbor's lawn? Would I get taxed for collecting deposit bottles on the side of the road? Would I get taxed for the money I get selling crack?
Under you view sales tax would be unworkable. Would I have to pay it if I only shopped at garage sales? Would I have to pay it if I bought everything out of state? Would I have to pay it if I only bartered and traded?
You're argument is that because there are some circumstances where tax could not be collected, the entire tax system would be impossible. You're clearly wrong. There could easily be a system in place where ISPs track email usage and send that information to the state. Sure, there would be exceptions, there are ALWAYS exceptions in real life, but over all the system would work.
You should be able to walk into Wal-Mart, request the songs you want, and have them burn them for you right there. For the millions of computer newbies out there, it'd do great.
I recently read an article that stated that all US music sales are dwarfed by just the sales of Wal-Mart by 20 times.
Considering the size of Wal-Mart, and considering that it never pays wholesale for anything, I'd be VERY worried if I were the RIAA. They're about to be bulldozed.
One last thing, in the US copyright infringement is NOT considered theft. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
I'm not saying that copyright infringment is legal, I'm merely saying that it is not theft, despite all the propoganda from the RIAA and MPAA.
It all boils down to possession. If you steal a car, the owner of the car is deprived use of it. However, if you merely make a copy of someone's car, he or she can still use it.
I work in a Court every day, and about every 6 months we sentence someone who killed someone close to him merely because he happened to have a gun on him. None of those murders would have taken place if the gun wasn't there.
I'm not anti-gun, I'm just saying that a hand gun, which has the sole purpose to kill another person, is much more harmful than one illegally downloaded movie.
"This issue is not about bringing any harm to society."
But that is the issue. We make laws which prohibit certain behavior because the behavior causes harm. That's why murdering someone is a life offense, while it's perfectly legal to wear brown socks. One is a harm, while the other is not.
I have no doubt that massive illegal downloading of music and movies is harmful to society. However, I simply disagree with the amount of harm.
If you add up all the sales of the ENTIRE US music industry, that total is dwarved by 20 times by the sales of just Wal-Mart alone.
The music industry is just a minor blip in our economy. Thus, even if the music industry collapsed due to illegal downloading, there would not be a lot of harm. Considering that more people download music illegally than voted in the last election, would society really be better off if all of those millions of people received three year prison terms?
You're utterly missing the point. Is having one illegal movie on your hard drive worthy of three years in prison?
It's about proportionality. In most states, first degree murder is a life offense. We consider murder a serious crime. On the other hand, driving over the speed limit will generally get you only a ticket.
In Michigan, carrying a concealed weapon without a license is a two year crime. Do you really think that having one movie on your hard drive is greater harm to society than someone illegally concealing a handgun?!
I think one of the problems with music nowadays is that CDs contain too much of it. In the old days artists released 10 good songs per album. But now CDs contain way too much filler. And even if every song was great, who has time to listen to 80 minutes of it?!
First, I'm an attorney in Michigan who works daily in the courts.
Second, you said that "you must represent yourself." Who is the "yourself" in a corporation?! The CEO, the primary stock holder, the janitor?! It's a simple fact that none of those people could represent the corporation because they'd be practicing law without a license.
While you can represent yourself regardless of whether you're an attorney, you can ONLY represent someone else if you're an attorney. Thus, any corporation would have to be represented by counsel.
The Court I work at has defaulted corporations before because the owners were under the erroneous belief that they could represent the corporation himself. Unless they are attornys, they cannot.
Lastly, the information in the link is erroneous. It may be true that when individuals sue each other a court could forbid lawyers, e.g., minor property disputes, but if a coporation is sued, it can only be represented by counsel.
"SCO is not allowed to use a lawyer in small claims court."
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it's utterly wrong. In the US individuals can either hire attorneys are represent themselves. However, corporations can only be represented by counsel. Thus, SCO, could only be represented by an attorney.
Mmm... IBM requested proof of SCO's claims. That's how our system of "justice" works, the plaintiff files a case then proves it by providing evidence.
In alleged response to IBM's request, SCO filed a bunch of its own subpoenas. Exactly how is that "firing back"?! The only way SCO could "fire back" is by responding to IBM's request, i.e., PROVE ITS CASE!!!
SCO's subpoenas are nothing but a delay tactic. It's an attempt to avoid firing back as long as possible. SCO is not ready to let the world know it has absolutely no proof.
For any SCO supporters out there, ask yourself this: If SCO had evidence, why is it STILL hiding it?! An author cannot sue another author for plagiarism, but refuse to tell exactly what was plagiarized!
There is a rumor that Xbox2 games (or whatever it'll be called) will not be backwards compatible with the Xbox.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12587
On the other hand, Sony claims that the PS3 (or whatever it'll be called) will be backwards compatible all the way back to the PS1. In other words, right out of the bat the PS3 will have more games available than the Xbox2 ever will have.
My question: Will this kill the Xbox2?! Is the ability to play all your old games that important to gamers?