Actually, the parodies don't use the trademarks, but the form of an advertising campaign, so, since ads are copyrighted, "fair use" is in play. If the companies think they can use "priceless" as a trademark, they should check Fox News et al vs Franken.
Ed
And this from car makers who resist making low-emission vehicles in preference to gas-guzzling roadzilla SUVs!
But there's already a means of paying while you drive. It's called "EZPass," and lets you set up an account (on your credit card) that deducts tolls as you drive through the special lanes on bridges, turnpikes, tunnels, etc. So EZPass speeding tickets (can you say "EZFine?") are just the next stage of the game.
But what bothers me is not just the absolute conformity with traffic laws (public pressure would probably limit those, anyway, since everyone drives over the limit -- if they don't want to get run over) but the ability to locate a car (and presumably its driver) when no laws have been broken. Once the car automatically reports its location, it's no biggie to have the sensors find the car.
And there's nothing in the technology to guarantee that it's going to be used legally. Want to find wandering Texas lawmakers? No need to involve DHS (Dept. of Heimland -- I mean "Homeland" -- Defense); just fire up the roadside detectors and bingo!, there's your target.
Of course, we needn't go into using GPS to target autos for aerial bombardment, do we?
>
No, they didn't. They just didn't spell "ridiculous."
>
Aha! If you were the REAL Mrs. Truman, you'd know that it's "Harry S Truman." (You'd also be 20 years dead, or so.)
So There!
Ed
I don't know. At a party once, though, I met one of the part-timers who had been "Cringely" at one time. The name is, like, a non-de-plume, used by a PC publication (can't remember which'n) for their industry-gossip column. The actual writer(s) come and go, and sometimes work in tandem (e.g., I'll write this week's column, you write next week's, and for Labor Day, we'll see if the copy-boy can spell "Microsoft" while we go on vacation).
The US Declaration of Independence included an argument (in fact, that's what it is, a statement of one side of an argument) that certain ideas are universal. One of these ideas is that governments are devised by people for the purpose of protecting those same people, and that if the government does not protect them, the people have the right to change their government.
Once the ideals of the American Revolution became well-known, most people agreed that, in general, anyway, these ideals are universal. The devil is in the details, of course, so how these ideals get put into action, get institutionalized, has been the story of political history ever since.
The point was made that the Australian people have decided to make voting mandatory, and have called on their government to administer this law. Someone said that, in doing so, the government was doing what it was supposed to do, which is follow the will of the people.
Someone else said that he felt that requiring voting was a violation of liberty, and, were he an Australian, he would (at least consider) violating the law.
Thus it has always been. Individuals are free to do whatever they choose. The problem is with the consequences, if the powers that be -- family, society, clan, tribe, religion, local or national government, or even supra-government (e.g., UN) -- consider the transgression to be serious enough, they will impose sanctions as a consequence of any individual's actions.
So the question becomes "Is it worth it to me, as an individual, to go along with [insert law here], or suffer the consequences, [insert consequence], and break the law?" For some people, in some societies, the moral imperitive to follow the law is strong. In other societies, such imperitives are weaker. When such societies interact, the differences will be a source of conflict. Everything from drug laws to copying music files to planning civil disobedience to plotting insurrections are possible actions in contravention of various and several laws, and how any individual treats those laws is his business -- provided that those whom his/her actions touch have the same right to react. That is, your decision to NOT vote cannot impinge on my right to do so. Now, not voting doesn't actually harm one's fellow citizens, except in the most abstract sense, so if the government were to make the consequences more draconian (imprisonment, corporal punishment -- bring back the stocks! -- etc.), then that same government would not be maintaining its duties vis a vis its citezens, and should be changed.
Bringing buses to the "right" districts is an old, established process, done by both parties (the Rethuglicans just use limos), and, unless the voters being bussed are somehow illegally voting, it's perfectly legal, and, more importantly, okay by me.
Now, pruning the voter rolls in heavily Democratic precincts by matching lists of voters with prison records and striking off people with similar names without checking further, and similar techniques as used in Florida, now that is illegal, but it's done anyway. Redistricting a couple years after a redistricting (court-ordered), just because you have the votes in the legislature, and making the districts as fool-proof as you can, that, too is an old, established practice. Legal? Sure, till the voters catch on, or your arrogance turns even your own supporters against you, or till the courts strike it down (but not to worry, the "right party" is appointing the judges now, anyway, right?).
As a Traveling Willburies song has it, "In Jersey, everything's legal if you don't get caught" (substitute your state's name as appropriate).
Looks to me like that's the only answer. RIAA assumes that its losses are solely due to illegal copying of their product (rather than the Rethuglican Recession), and, instead of doing what most businesses do -- cut prices -- they jump on their would-be customer with both feet (after first lacing their boots on). ENOUGH!
So as of today, I will buy no more new CDs, DVDs, or any other "media" product where the RIAA is or might be involved. I will continue to make my own music, of course, and purchase independent recordings as I find them, but no more purchases from the Pigopolists.I declare today to be "End Dependence Day"
I must say, though, that I am not in the practice of using P2P products or services, anyway, but the increasingly draconian approach to the public indicates to me that the RIAA has no interest in its own customers, so I simply refuse to be a customer.
I did a similar thing with ESPN, when I found that they had hired Rush Limbaugh (pfooey!) to present commentary on their pre-game shows for the NFL season upcoming. I removed ESPN channels from my "favorites" button on the remote, and will do my best not to watch the channel.
They're suing concerning the use of the name "Spam," and don't seem to care whether the company they're suing is truly anti-spam or not. The point is trademark law, not computer security business practices. I know next to nothing about the company in the case, but do know that it's about whether a reasonable person (find me one of those, if you please) would think the company is the maker of the pig's-lips-and-assholes "food product."
Actually, Hormel is beginning to take an interest in the use of "spam" in company names, suing an anti-spam software producer (can't remember which one just now), despite their acceptance of "spam" as "slang" in referring to junkemail. So you can't use "spam" in your product name, even though your target is junkemail "spam." It'll be an interesting case.
My problem with anti-spam legislation is if an opt-out bill becomes law, spammers get one free "hit" before you opt out. The result, of course, will be that they get one free hit for each mailing, since they'll do whatever it takes to change email address, ISP, etc., after each mass junkemailing. The result is that spam becomes automatically LEGAL.
Think about it. If you don't opt out, they can send you whatever they want, and if you do, they can send you whatever they want, once (and then change identities and do it again). Neat, eh?
I'd rather have no laws than bad laws. Come to think of it, that'd be a good principle to pursue. Put a few lawyers out of work, maybe, but they could always go to work helping pare down all the bad laws.
Ed
Having a name common in India may not help you with the no-nothings in America. Heard a news report t'other day about a bunch of yahoos that beat up this "Arab" or "Muslim" who turned out to be a Hindu. Given that Hindu/Muslim antagonism was the root cause of the split of Pakistan off from India*, if you know anything about the folks involved, you'd know that a Hindu isn't a Muslim, and would be much less likely to be an anti-American terrorist. Anti-Pak terrorist, maybe, but these were American thugs.
Ed
Hmmm... I thought only guitarists drove valves to clipping stage. I thought the whole point of those audiophile amps was to use the part of the spectrum that had the least distortion to play your LPs. So a 100-watt amp would nearly destroy your hearing at about 10 watts, but that 10-watt area was where the curve was flat, with no distortion.
I know that the designers of those audiophile amps were seeking the opposite of what users of guitar amps were seeking, leading to considerable misunderstanding in the early days of rock guitar, since amp designers were amp designers. It wasn't until enough guitarists asked for amps that would clip that the designers "got it" and made valves that work that way. And it's also why early transistor guitar amps were so shunned -- when driven to clip, they sounded for shit.
Now, I don't know if valve audiophile amps provide better sound than solid state ones -- I know there are those who say "yes" and those who say "hogwash" -- but I doubt it's because the amps are driven to clipping stage.
Ed
Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one.
on
A Tour of Pixar
·
· Score: 1
Well, according to the rules for national security classifications, you are not allowed to stamp anything "Top Secret," "Secret," or even "Confidential" if it's not really one of those classes. People do it, for versimilitude in gaming, in movies, etc., but they shouldn't be surprised when the powers that be react as if it were real.
Ed
Re:Losing between $3-4B a year???
on
A Tour of Pixar
·
· Score: 1
I recently read a study of RIAA's claims as to losses due to music piracy, and the losses equate to just about what the rest of the economy, in particular businesses that depend on "extra cash," were experiencing. In other words, with the economy in the dumps, you would expect sales to be down within 1-2% of what's being reported, so losses to piracy are only a small portion of the losses due to bad economics.
I can't remember the URL for that study, but it might have even been here that I read it.
What bothers me, in addition to the purported use this huge database will be put to (even if only done with the best of intentions, and we know what road is paved with those) is the security of the damned data once collected. When IRS folks "just take a look at" celebreties' tax returns, when policemen regularly skim through data unrelated to any active case ("Wonder if my ex-wife's new boyfriend is in here?"), when hackers can get 10,000 SSNs or credit card numbers, so why not a quick download of info on random citizens, then I worry. I worry a lot.
We all know that no widely-shared data is safeguarded very well, and the wider the user base, the less security (how many does it take to keep a secret? -- one, of course). So the mere collection of this stuff will lead to leakage of the stuff.
And if it's no more accurate than the records they keep now, well, need I say more?
Can you spell "recipe for disaster?" I knew you could. Next week, we'll learn how to say, "I hold in my hand the names of 26 known Communists in the State Department."
Ed Drone (been there, done that, and the T-shirt doesn't fit any more)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the parodies don't use the trademarks, but the form of an advertising campaign, so, since ads are copyrighted, "fair use" is in play. If the companies think they can use "priceless" as a trademark, they should check Fox News et al vs Franken. Ed
That one poor columnist is the guy he's fixated on, and can't leave alone (the one he's stalking). He's as bad as some of the nutcases on usenet. Ed
It'd be interesting to try the experiment while on various substances, though.
Ed
But there's already a means of paying while you drive. It's called "EZPass," and lets you set up an account (on your credit card) that deducts tolls as you drive through the special lanes on bridges, turnpikes, tunnels, etc. So EZPass speeding tickets (can you say "EZFine?") are just the next stage of the game.
But what bothers me is not just the absolute conformity with traffic laws (public pressure would probably limit those, anyway, since everyone drives over the limit -- if they don't want to get run over) but the ability to locate a car (and presumably its driver) when no laws have been broken. Once the car automatically reports its location, it's no biggie to have the sensors find the car.
And there's nothing in the technology to guarantee that it's going to be used legally. Want to find wandering Texas lawmakers? No need to involve DHS (Dept. of Heimland -- I mean "Homeland" -- Defense); just fire up the roadside detectors and bingo!, there's your target.
Of course, we needn't go into using GPS to target autos for aerial bombardment, do we?
Ed
> No, they didn't. They just didn't spell "ridiculous." > Aha! If you were the REAL Mrs. Truman, you'd know that it's "Harry S Truman." (You'd also be 20 years dead, or so.) So There! Ed
Ed
The US Declaration of Independence included an argument (in fact, that's what it is, a statement of one side of an argument) that certain ideas are universal. One of these ideas is that governments are devised by people for the purpose of protecting those same people, and that if the government does not protect them, the people have the right to change their government.
Once the ideals of the American Revolution became well-known, most people agreed that, in general, anyway, these ideals are universal. The devil is in the details, of course, so how these ideals get put into action, get institutionalized, has been the story of political history ever since.
The point was made that the Australian people have decided to make voting mandatory, and have called on their government to administer this law. Someone said that, in doing so, the government was doing what it was supposed to do, which is follow the will of the people.
Someone else said that he felt that requiring voting was a violation of liberty, and, were he an Australian, he would (at least consider) violating the law.
Thus it has always been. Individuals are free to do whatever they choose. The problem is with the consequences, if the powers that be -- family, society, clan, tribe, religion, local or national government, or even supra-government (e.g., UN) -- consider the transgression to be serious enough, they will impose sanctions as a consequence of any individual's actions.
So the question becomes "Is it worth it to me, as an individual, to go along with [insert law here], or suffer the consequences, [insert consequence], and break the law?" For some people, in some societies, the moral imperitive to follow the law is strong. In other societies, such imperitives are weaker. When such societies interact, the differences will be a source of conflict. Everything from drug laws to copying music files to planning civil disobedience to plotting insurrections are possible actions in contravention of various and several laws, and how any individual treats those laws is his business -- provided that those whom his/her actions touch have the same right to react. That is, your decision to NOT vote cannot impinge on my right to do so. Now, not voting doesn't actually harm one's fellow citizens, except in the most abstract sense, so if the government were to make the consequences more draconian (imprisonment, corporal punishment -- bring back the stocks! -- etc.), then that same government would not be maintaining its duties vis a vis its citezens, and should be changed.
Long-winded, ain't I?
Ed
Now, pruning the voter rolls in heavily Democratic precincts by matching lists of voters with prison records and striking off people with similar names without checking further, and similar techniques as used in Florida, now that is illegal, but it's done anyway. Redistricting a couple years after a redistricting (court-ordered), just because you have the votes in the legislature, and making the districts as fool-proof as you can, that, too is an old, established practice. Legal? Sure, till the voters catch on, or your arrogance turns even your own supporters against you, or till the courts strike it down (but not to worry, the "right party" is appointing the judges now, anyway, right?).
As a Traveling Willburies song has it, "In Jersey, everything's legal if you don't get caught" (substitute your state's name as appropriate).
Ed
So as of today, I will buy no more new CDs, DVDs, or any other "media" product where the RIAA is or might be involved. I will continue to make my own music, of course, and purchase independent recordings as I find them, but no more purchases from the Pigopolists. I declare today to be "End Dependence Day"
I must say, though, that I am not in the practice of using P2P products or services, anyway, but the increasingly draconian approach to the public indicates to me that the RIAA has no interest in its own customers, so I simply refuse to be a customer.
I did a similar thing with ESPN, when I found that they had hired Rush Limbaugh (pfooey!) to present commentary on their pre-game shows for the NFL season upcoming. I removed ESPN channels from my "favorites" button on the remote, and will do my best not to watch the channel.
Ed
Try this: 1 Send everyone to jail 2 Sign inflated contract to supply music to jails 3 Profit! .... Easy, ain't it?
Ed
They're suing concerning the use of the name "Spam," and don't seem to care whether the company they're suing is truly anti-spam or not. The point is trademark law, not computer security business practices. I know next to nothing about the company in the case, but do know that it's about whether a reasonable person (find me one of those, if you please) would think the company is the maker of the pig's-lips-and-assholes "food product."
Ed
Actually, Hormel is beginning to take an interest in the use of "spam" in company names, suing an anti-spam software producer (can't remember which one just now), despite their acceptance of "spam" as "slang" in referring to junkemail. So you can't use "spam" in your product name, even though your target is junkemail "spam." It'll be an interesting case. My problem with anti-spam legislation is if an opt-out bill becomes law, spammers get one free "hit" before you opt out. The result, of course, will be that they get one free hit for each mailing, since they'll do whatever it takes to change email address, ISP, etc., after each mass junkemailing. The result is that spam becomes automatically LEGAL. Think about it. If you don't opt out, they can send you whatever they want, and if you do, they can send you whatever they want, once (and then change identities and do it again). Neat, eh? I'd rather have no laws than bad laws. Come to think of it, that'd be a good principle to pursue. Put a few lawyers out of work, maybe, but they could always go to work helping pare down all the bad laws. Ed
Having a name common in India may not help you with the no-nothings in America. Heard a news report t'other day about a bunch of yahoos that beat up this "Arab" or "Muslim" who turned out to be a Hindu. Given that Hindu/Muslim antagonism was the root cause of the split of Pakistan off from India*, if you know anything about the folks involved, you'd know that a Hindu isn't a Muslim, and would be much less likely to be an anti-American terrorist. Anti-Pak terrorist, maybe, but these were American thugs. Ed
The most depressing guy ever? You've never listened to any Richard Thompson songs, have you? His CDs should be packaged with their own razor blade. Ed
Hmmm... I thought only guitarists drove valves to clipping stage. I thought the whole point of those audiophile amps was to use the part of the spectrum that had the least distortion to play your LPs. So a 100-watt amp would nearly destroy your hearing at about 10 watts, but that 10-watt area was where the curve was flat, with no distortion.
I know that the designers of those audiophile amps were seeking the opposite of what users of guitar amps were seeking, leading to considerable misunderstanding in the early days of rock guitar, since amp designers were amp designers. It wasn't until enough guitarists asked for amps that would clip that the designers "got it" and made valves that work that way. And it's also why early transistor guitar amps were so shunned -- when driven to clip, they sounded for shit.
Now, I don't know if valve audiophile amps provide better sound than solid state ones -- I know there are those who say "yes" and those who say "hogwash" -- but I doubt it's because the amps are driven to clipping stage.
Ed
Well, according to the rules for national security classifications, you are not allowed to stamp anything "Top Secret," "Secret," or even "Confidential" if it's not really one of those classes. People do it, for versimilitude in gaming, in movies, etc., but they shouldn't be surprised when the powers that be react as if it were real.
Ed
I recently read a study of RIAA's claims as to losses due to music piracy, and the losses equate to just about what the rest of the economy, in particular businesses that depend on "extra cash," were experiencing. In other words, with the economy in the dumps, you would expect sales to be down within 1-2% of what's being reported, so losses to piracy are only a small portion of the losses due to bad economics.
I can't remember the URL for that study, but it might have even been here that I read it.
Ed
What bothers me, in addition to the purported use this huge database will be put to (even if only done with the best of intentions, and we know what road is paved with those) is the security of the damned data once collected. When IRS folks "just take a look at" celebreties' tax returns, when policemen regularly skim through data unrelated to any active case ("Wonder if my ex-wife's new boyfriend is in here?"), when hackers can get 10,000 SSNs or credit card numbers, so why not a quick download of info on random citizens, then I worry. I worry a lot.
We all know that no widely-shared data is safeguarded very well, and the wider the user base, the less security (how many does it take to keep a secret? -- one, of course). So the mere collection of this stuff will lead to leakage of the stuff.
And if it's no more accurate than the records they keep now, well, need I say more?
Can you spell "recipe for disaster?" I knew you could. Next week, we'll learn how to say, "I hold in my hand the names of 26 known Communists in the State Department."
Ed Drone (been there, done that, and the T-shirt doesn't fit any more)