Funny then how it says "*Congress* shall make no law". If they really intended it to apply to more than what the government (federal or state) does, then why did they write the amendment like that?
Because back then the US government and the corporations weren't symbiotes yet.
Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.
Its non-existence in most places is a pretty good deterrent. I would much rather use public transportation than own my own vehicle. I hate driving, dealing with other drivers, paying for insurance & vehicle maintenance & gasoline, making the yearly donation to the DMV to keep it registered, and still having it break down from time to time. A lot of people consider the automobile as symbol of their freedom, I view it as a symbol of servitude --- when it breaks down, it immediately displaces whatever your current highest priority is. Goddamned things are balls and chains, polluters, and instruments of fatality --- claiming more lives in the age group 15-40 than any other cause of death in the U.S. The sooner we're rid of them, the better.
It's amazing how this offtopic, ranting, flambaiting, straw-man beating, troll of a post got modded up to 5. That's okay --- I'll take the negative mod-bombs from your little fan club.
No. It's unlimited as long as Disney has any say in the matter. Every time poor ol Mickey is about to dive into the public domain, it's time for another round of copyright extension. Perpetually renewable != limited.
Copyright is horribly broken. The terms need to be completely re-negotiated. It was never intended to exclusively benefit artists/corporations and guarantee them a living --- it was intended to benefit the public. In that, it is failing.
They have a right to make money on people obtaining their products.
That's negotiable. Currently law does not reflect this. If a friend of mine decides he doesn't like his Rolling Stones cd, and subsequently gives it to me, the producers/artists have no right (legal or otherwise) to collect money from me.
The only rights the producers/artists have are (i) the right to attempt to sell the items, and (ii) the exclusive right to make copies --- for a limited time. Let's not forget that last part like the corporations and the government have. It's hard for me to sympathize with the artists'/producers' plight when they don't uphold their end of the agreement.
Not much better. I'm still not able to wrap my mind around this "right to make money" because that sounds too much like entitlement. Again I say, if you record some music (which may potentially benefit others and is not forced upon them) you have the right to attempt to make money from it, by say offering copies for sale.
There are entities that would prefer it your way: Wouldn't it be nice for the RIAA if they could arrange things so that the only method of music distribution was on some physical, non-replicable object, and that all bands had to sign up with them, and that every playback device/radio could keep track of every time a song was played (for billing purposes), and that everyone were taxed a blanket percent of their income to be donated to the RIAA in case you accidentally drove up beside another car blasting out some music --- all enforced by the gubmint, to protect the artists' right to make money, of course?
people have the right to make money off of their work
No they don't. If I go digging a moat around my home, do I have the right to make money off that work? That is, should the government coerce my neighbors to pay for it? Ridiculous. Try this one:
People have the right to attempt to make money off of their work.
Fuck businesses. I'm so sick of greed-fueled policy to the exclusion of all else. We have problems with education, poverty, racism, disease, global warming, renewable energy, terrorism, and a host of other pressing issues. And yet, the God approved Constitutional right to make money trumps it all. How pathetic. We are doomed as a species --- and you know what? We deserve it.
Now... where have we heard that before? Oh yes, that sounds just like the drug laws that let police seize your house if they find you had marijuana inside it.
Now, now... you exaggerate. The drug laws let police seize your house on the mere suspicion that you once had marijuana inside it.
The problem with the whole concept of respect for authority is that most of the time the would-be respecters just have to take the authority at face value --- in other words, the respect is not necessarily earned. Do we respect church leaders because they are church leaders? Ask the boys molested by priests. Do we respect the POTUS? Ask the citizens whose phones were tapped without due process. And so on.
To quote Lord Acton, "There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it".
I never said that EVERY religious person was bad, or a nut job, or intolerant. I do believe that organized religion does more harm than good. I also believe that religious people are by and far like other types of people --- mostly weak, self-serving, indifferent, and dishonest (both to themselves, and others).
The difference is that even if there is no deity, the majority religions still provide useful and positive services to their members.
Like brainwashing them to believe that if they strap on a bomb and kill the infidel, they'll go straight to heaven where virgins await them?
... most clergy by whatever name they're called, as well as most believers, are good, honest people who try to do right in the world and from time to time succeed.
Prove it. I'm not buying it for a second. I've found religious types to be among the most intolerant people on the planet. Let's see, atheists are bad. Homosexuals are bad. Science is bad. People who believe in a different religion from you are bad. And so on, ad infinitum. Guess what happens to bad people? They often get beaten, locked up, or killed. Yeah, religion is great.
The price of anything is based on the maximum price the seller can sell it for while maximizing the number of items sold.
If you maximize items sold, you are not maximizing unit retail price. Instead, you maximize profit. Theft cuts into profit and can be absorbed into the profit equation, resulting in a new equation to be optimized. This most likely results in an adjustment of the unit retail price.
The whole concept of 'save the children' in the USA has gone way overboard, to the detriment of the youths themselves.
Well, the whole thing is a sham. When the precious children turn 18, they are ripe for sending overseas with a gun, or thrown into jail for smoking crack. You see, the people in the US don't really care about the children as human beings, for if they did care, the children would be regarded with the same protective attitude when they reach adulthood. No. The people here care about the idea of children --- proxies for their own vanished innocence, naivete, potential, and youth.
The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, not businesses. Nor can a business rightly make claim to any of the rights granted in the Constitution,
Slashdot Mirror
Funny then how it says "*Congress* shall make no law". If they really intended it to apply to more than what the government (federal or state) does, then why did they write the amendment like that?
Because back then the US government and the corporations weren't symbiotes yet.
Did you ever see the public transport system in the US. I have. I can understand why people refuse to use it.
Its non-existence in most places is a pretty good deterrent. I would much rather use public transportation than own my own vehicle. I hate driving, dealing with other drivers, paying for insurance & vehicle maintenance & gasoline, making the yearly donation to the DMV to keep it registered, and still having it break down from time to time. A lot of people consider the automobile as symbol of their freedom, I view it as a symbol of servitude --- when it breaks down, it immediately displaces whatever your current highest priority is. Goddamned things are balls and chains, polluters, and instruments of fatality --- claiming more lives in the age group 15-40 than any other cause of death in the U.S. The sooner we're rid of them, the better.
It's amazing how this offtopic, ranting, flambaiting, straw-man beating, troll of a post got modded up to 5. That's okay --- I'll take the negative mod-bombs from your little fan club.
Just admit that when you accept payment for your work, you're stealing from your employer.
But some jobs demand more scrutiny than others.
Apparently, the POTUS isn't one of them.
That limited time is what, 99 years?
No. It's unlimited as long as Disney has any say in the matter. Every time poor ol Mickey is about to dive into the public domain, it's time for another round of copyright extension. Perpetually renewable != limited.
Copyright is horribly broken. The terms need to be completely re-negotiated. It was never intended to exclusively benefit artists/corporations and guarantee them a living --- it was intended to benefit the public. In that, it is failing.
They have a right to make money on people obtaining their products.
That's negotiable. Currently law does not reflect this. If a friend of mine decides he doesn't like his Rolling Stones cd, and subsequently gives it to me, the producers/artists have no right (legal or otherwise) to collect money from me.
The only rights the producers/artists have are (i) the right to attempt to sell the items, and (ii) the exclusive right to make copies --- for a limited time. Let's not forget that last part like the corporations and the government have. It's hard for me to sympathize with the artists'/producers' plight when they don't uphold their end of the agreement.
Not much better. I'm still not able to wrap my mind around this "right to make money" because that sounds too much like entitlement. Again I say, if you record some music (which may potentially benefit others and is not forced upon them) you have the right to attempt to make money from it, by say offering copies for sale.
There are entities that would prefer it your way: Wouldn't it be nice for the RIAA if they could arrange things so that the only method of music distribution was on some physical, non-replicable object, and that all bands had to sign up with them, and that every playback device/radio could keep track of every time a song was played (for billing purposes), and that everyone were taxed a blanket percent of their income to be donated to the RIAA in case you accidentally drove up beside another car blasting out some music --- all enforced by the gubmint, to protect the artists' right to make money, of course?
people have the right to make money off of their work
No they don't. If I go digging a moat around my home, do I have the right to make money off that work? That is, should the government coerce my neighbors to pay for it? Ridiculous. Try this one:
People have the right to attempt to make money off of their work.
They'll just outlaw that too. It doesn't support the business model of the United States.
Piracy costs businesses money.
I'll feed you.
Fuck businesses. I'm so sick of greed-fueled policy to the exclusion of all else. We have problems with education, poverty, racism, disease, global warming, renewable energy, terrorism, and a host of other pressing issues. And yet, the God approved Constitutional right to make money trumps it all. How pathetic. We are doomed as a species --- and you know what? We deserve it.
I don't know ... distributing Gigli and Battlefield Earth might be a start.
Now... where have we heard that before? Oh yes, that sounds just like the drug laws that let police seize your house if they find you had marijuana inside it.
... you exaggerate. The drug laws let police seize your house on the mere suspicion that you once had marijuana inside it.
Now, now
The problem with the whole concept of respect for authority is that most of the time the would-be respecters just have to take the authority at face value --- in other words, the respect is not necessarily earned. Do we respect church leaders because they are church leaders? Ask the boys molested by priests. Do we respect the POTUS? Ask the citizens whose phones were tapped without due process. And so on.
To quote Lord Acton, "There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it".
If I point out that fair-weather friend is supposed to be hyphenated, does that make me insightful?
;)
Apparently so
I never said that EVERY religious person was bad, or a nut job, or intolerant. I do believe that organized religion does more harm than good. I also believe that religious people are by and far like other types of people --- mostly weak, self-serving, indifferent, and dishonest (both to themselves, and others).
The difference is that even if there is no deity, the majority religions still provide useful and positive services to their members.
... most clergy by whatever name they're called, as well as most believers, are good, honest people who try to do right in the world and from time to time succeed.
Like brainwashing them to believe that if they strap on a bomb and kill the infidel, they'll go straight to heaven where virgins await them?
Prove it. I'm not buying it for a second. I've found religious types to be among the most intolerant people on the planet. Let's see, atheists are bad. Homosexuals are bad. Science is bad. People who believe in a different religion from you are bad. And so on, ad infinitum. Guess what happens to bad people? They often get beaten, locked up, or killed. Yeah, religion is great.
Hey! Who are you calling a Wal-Mart shopper?
The price of anything is based on the maximum price the seller can sell it for while maximizing the number of items sold.
If you maximize items sold, you are not maximizing unit retail price. Instead, you maximize profit. Theft cuts into profit and can be absorbed into the profit equation, resulting in a new equation to be optimized. This most likely results in an adjustment of the unit retail price.
She's going play Empress Palpatine.
The whole concept of 'save the children' in the USA has gone way overboard, to the detriment of the youths themselves.
Well, the whole thing is a sham. When the precious children turn 18, they are ripe for sending overseas with a gun, or thrown into jail for smoking crack. You see, the people in the US don't really care about the children as human beings, for if they did care, the children would be regarded with the same protective attitude when they reach adulthood. No. The people here care about the idea of children --- proxies for their own vanished innocence, naivete, potential, and youth.
Expressing an opinion is one thing. Using the legal system to force your skewed "morality" onto the masses is something else entirely.
You are a terrorist!
Priceless.
The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, not businesses. Nor can a business rightly make claim to any of the rights granted in the Constitution,
You're wrong.
Sony also backs the player as a quality company--the chances of a system failure are low because Sony makes quality equipment.
** Cough ** Overheating ** Cough **
Quit complaining about price.
Not complaining. Not buying one either until the price comes down.