When did he say he wanted to feel better? He wanted advantages. It's too bad a spellchecker can't correct the constant flow of "loose" for "lose", "your" for "you're", etc., however.
Because then, I'd feel pretty bad about laughing so hard. Copyright, based on a power enumerated in the constitution, is "some obscure federal statute"? And are you honestly saying that it's A-OK to infringe upon copyright simply because there are other people who permit unrestricted copying?
You got "charges" correct. Essentially it means kids, as in who they are "charged" to take care of.
I'd read the bit about the girl's mother thinking she was within the law. That'll contribute to an "innocent infringement" defense, probably; but it was still her responsibility to check it out.
Was part of this alleged misrepresentation a statement that one could freely download copyrighted materials?
Also worth mentioning: since mp3.com has been a Vivendi property for some time, I find it very, very hard to believe they'd be tying themselves to file-sharing. More likely some band she liked preferred P2P as their distribution medium.
After countless flimsy excuses being thrown around constantly for years now by willful copyright infringers ("my CDs were stolen!" "I only listened to them for 24 hours!" "the RIAA steals money from artists so it's OK!" "it helps me discover new music!" ad nauseum), I'm very much inclined to disbelieve more of the same, and this sounds very much like more of the same to me.
McDonald's lost their famous coffee burn case not on the merits of the plaintiff's complaints but because of the jury's disgust at their obvious callousness and disregard of the 81 year old plaintiff.
Which, incidentally, was quite the case of dereliction of duty by the jury. You don't find someone guilty because you're digusted with them, you find someone guilty because it has been proven they are beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right, because their strategy should be to spend thousands of dollars to produce recordings, then permit people to copy them with no renumeration whatsoever.
Copyright is a law enacted by Congress. The "contracts" only enter into it when you're talking EULA-style distribution, and music has not (yet) moved into that area.
One could also quite convincingly argue that it is this girl's guardians' responsibility to find out what their charges are doing, and the illegality if any...
Why, does ripping off consumers by overcharging them, then requesting that they erase their fair use copies of music off their harddrive make one right?
Nobody is asking anyone to "erase fair use copies". You don't even know what "fair use" is; I'd wager very, very few people have actually engaged in fair use. It's about excerpting in another work.
In any event, what's happening is people are being told to stop infringing on copyrights by making copies for anyone who asks their computers to do so.
Immoral? I didn't know the pope joined this debate.
Morals do not a papal decree require, my hyperreactionary friend. Many have deeply-held morals that don't believe John Paul has any sort of moral authority whatsoever.
4. "Is it all worth it?"
The optic cables are screaming with the answer of more than a million intelligent netizens.
No, they're screaming with the answer of millions of freeloaders. Their collective intelligence is quite debatable, I assure you.
We'll probably go through a generation or two where people relearn all the old painful lessons.
Indeed. Painful lessons like the inability to fire incomptent employees and payment far above and beyond the value of work leading to gross inefficiency and therefore higher prices (= higher cost of living) and the reduced ability to employ (= higher unemployment).
Net result: instead of sharing nets being filled with Britney tracks, they're instead filled with "Johnnys Piano Recital Age 5.mp3", "Ted - Speech To Upper Management (4hrs).mp3", and "AARP 2000 Meeting - First Night Orgy.avi".
That is such a tired old argument. If these musicians didn't want the contract, they need not sign it. Nobody is forcing them to. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring payback of advances.
Your placement of the phrase "pay back the loan" in quotes does not make it any less true. It is a loan, and it deserves to be paid back. That's the way it works. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract!
Witty, to be sure, but won't that set you up in the future? "See, your honor, he sent us this letter acknowleging that he is in possession of our IP..."
While I mostly agree, the sad fact of the matter is that no software yet exists that can magically apply lovely documentism. They all do a fairly good job if the end-user is of the "style" mental state rather than the "hand-tune" mental state -- i.e. semantic vs. presentational markup. If they can get themselves to defer to the computer for the style, then their documents will look good.
Most people just don't grok it, though. At my church, there's a computer that runs PowerPoint slides with song lyrics, etc. One of the people who puts the lyrics into slides doesn't grok the concept of paragraphs, and the pastor's style has a first-line leftwise indent. The lyric-typer hits "Center", then starts typing, not actually breaking the paragraph, and the first line of each slide is off center by a half-inch to the left. Of course, worse than the fact that they probably don't see it is that I'm pedantic enough to spot it every time.:-)
Yes, but (and I'm having a hard time finding numbers here) consider that millions (or at least many thousands) of people are playing the lottery at any given time, enough to make the odds of someone winning much better than the odds of one person winning. I'm sure that when PowerBall gets up in the hundreds of millions, the odds of someone winning are much greater than 1 in 909,000.
Slashdot Mirror
When did he say he wanted to feel better? He wanted advantages. It's too bad a spellchecker can't correct the constant flow of "loose" for "lose", "your" for "you're", etc., however.
Movable Type is most assuredly not Open Source.
It does not matter for most people's use, but it's still incorrect to say that it is.
</PEDANTIC>
Please tell me you're not serious.
Because then, I'd feel pretty bad about laughing so hard. Copyright, based on a power enumerated in the constitution, is "some obscure federal statute"? And are you honestly saying that it's A-OK to infringe upon copyright simply because there are other people who permit unrestricted copying?
Hehehe... good one, man.
You got "charges" correct. Essentially it means kids, as in who they are "charged" to take care of.
I'd read the bit about the girl's mother thinking she was within the law. That'll contribute to an "innocent infringement" defense, probably; but it was still her responsibility to check it out.
Was part of this alleged misrepresentation a statement that one could freely download copyrighted materials?
Also worth mentioning: since mp3.com has been a Vivendi property for some time, I find it very, very hard to believe they'd be tying themselves to file-sharing. More likely some band she liked preferred P2P as their distribution medium.
After countless flimsy excuses being thrown around constantly for years now by willful copyright infringers ("my CDs were stolen!" "I only listened to them for 24 hours!" "the RIAA steals money from artists so it's OK!" "it helps me discover new music!" ad nauseum), I'm very much inclined to disbelieve more of the same, and this sounds very much like more of the same to me.
Which, incidentally, was quite the case of dereliction of duty by the jury. You don't find someone guilty because you're digusted with them, you find someone guilty because it has been proven they are beyond a reasonable doubt.
It would help your case immensely if you weren't also guilty of copyright infringement.
If you're not guilty of said and you get an RIAA suit, then you've got something. Grab a lawyer and kick their asses.
Right, because their strategy should be to spend thousands of dollars to produce recordings, then permit people to copy them with no renumeration whatsoever.
What the fnarf are you smoking?
Copyright is a law enacted by Congress. The "contracts" only enter into it when you're talking EULA-style distribution, and music has not (yet) moved into that area.
One could also quite convincingly argue that it is this girl's guardians' responsibility to find out what their charges are doing, and the illegality if any...
Nobody is asking anyone to "erase fair use copies". You don't even know what "fair use" is; I'd wager very, very few people have actually engaged in fair use. It's about excerpting in another work.
In any event, what's happening is people are being told to stop infringing on copyrights by making copies for anyone who asks their computers to do so.
Morals do not a papal decree require, my hyperreactionary friend. Many have deeply-held morals that don't believe John Paul has any sort of moral authority whatsoever.
No, they're screaming with the answer of millions of freeloaders. Their collective intelligence is quite debatable, I assure you.
"Infringe", not "steal", but you are correct.
(-1, Pedantic)
Indeed. Painful lessons like the inability to fire incomptent employees and payment far above and beyond the value of work leading to gross inefficiency and therefore higher prices (= higher cost of living) and the reduced ability to employ (= higher unemployment).
Net result: instead of sharing nets being filled with Britney tracks, they're instead filled with "Johnnys Piano Recital Age 5.mp3", "Ted - Speech To Upper Management (4hrs).mp3", and "AARP 2000 Meeting - First Night Orgy.avi".
Shudder.
That is such a tired old argument. If these musicians didn't want the contract, they need not sign it. Nobody is forcing them to. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring payback of advances.
Your placement of the phrase "pay back the loan" in quotes does not make it any less true. It is a loan, and it deserves to be paid back. That's the way it works. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract!
Well, he is doing it in public. Simply because the police have not yet showed up at his door does not make it any less civil disobedience, in my view.
So he can burn it on a CD, then. CDs are pretty much free these days.
But this does cloud the experiment somewhat.
I don't see any evidence of non-cretinishness, myself... (sly wink)
Witty, to be sure, but won't that set you up in the future? "See, your honor, he sent us this letter acknowleging that he is in possession of our IP..."
Would you mind showing your code? This interests me greatly.
While I mostly agree, the sad fact of the matter is that no software yet exists that can magically apply lovely documentism. They all do a fairly good job if the end-user is of the "style" mental state rather than the "hand-tune" mental state -- i.e. semantic vs. presentational markup. If they can get themselves to defer to the computer for the style, then their documents will look good.
Most people just don't grok it, though. At my church, there's a computer that runs PowerPoint slides with song lyrics, etc. One of the people who puts the lyrics into slides doesn't grok the concept of paragraphs, and the pastor's style has a first-line leftwise indent. The lyric-typer hits "Center", then starts typing, not actually breaking the paragraph, and the first line of each slide is off center by a half-inch to the left. Of course, worse than the fact that they probably don't see it is that I'm pedantic enough to spot it every time. :-)
...Macs had WYSIWYG.
No, read it more closely. There's 1011.
Yes, but (and I'm having a hard time finding numbers here) consider that millions (or at least many thousands) of people are playing the lottery at any given time, enough to make the odds of someone winning much better than the odds of one person winning. I'm sure that when PowerBall gets up in the hundreds of millions, the odds of someone winning are much greater than 1 in 909,000.