Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds...and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of...wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up, the long, delirious burning blue
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, nor even eagle flew.
And while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
N.B. I have it framed and hanging in my bedroom. It seems quite the apt description of what they are attempting.
P.S. John Magee was a pilot in the RCAF, No. 412 squadron, during WWII. He wrote the poem when he was only 19. He died a few months later.
Now, all the uber-geeks can finally at least say that by bidding they had a chance at getting head on the internet. Seriously, folks, I shave my head daily.
Inquiring minds want to know: how much morphine do you inject before your morning circumcision, or are you just into pain?
I'll come right out and take credit for the massive left-wing media conspiracy. After all, if you're going to embrace the madness with delusions of grandeur, you might as well go for the really stunning ones.
I enjoy getting fed worthless crap by journalists who wouldn't know a real story if it walked up and shat in their cereal. It just means that truly evil people like myself can keep the rest of you schmucks in the dark when we unleash our... no, that would be giving it away. I've seen too many Kevin Smith movies to reveal all my plans before the end. Just know that when the sun gets blotted out when you least expect it, don't panic. It's already too late to panic.
There are two industries that drive tech: porn, and war. Always have, always will. But the only reason porn is listed is because it's tolerated in the US. The military alone drove Soviet tech. The problem with your theory is that their socioeconomic system was communism, not capitalism. They put the first man in space, made the first spacewalk, and the Russians are using Soviet legacy tech to get our astronauts into space when we can't ourselves. Capitalism has nothing to do with tech development.
To be a little more precise, in the US capitalism is the economic vehicle that the porn industry and the military industrial complex are driving to reach higher technology. Capitalism is a nice theory, but it requires money to actually make it work. That money comes from Ron Jeremy and Donald Rumsfeld. (Never thought you'd see those two in a sentence next to each other, did you?)
Without assigning any moral judgment to porn (or the military, for that matter), I simply state that those two industries contribute the largest amount of money to new technology development.
Sanford: The Goddess of the Net, her arm clad in the purest shimmering source code, held aloft Stealth Mass Mailer from the bosom of the data stream, signifying by divine providence that I, Sanford, was to carry Stealth Mass Mailer. THAT is why I am your king.
Peasant [interrupting]: Listen, strange women lyin' in chat rooms distributin' emailers is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical IRC ceremony!
You need to keep in mind the number of counts on the docket. He warezed 13,000 titles. If he killed 13,000 people and only got 15 years, then I'd say our justice system was broken. Or if he warezed ONE title and got 15 years, I'd call foul. This is proportional justice.
I prefer to keep my ignorant hands off hard caps. There are a lot of people much more qualified to answer that question. In fact, this is a question that the market itself could answer: as long as the margins are too high, you'll see substantial piracy. I don't have to lift a finger to get that result, and it achieves my ends.:)
As for the 'industry' margins, I'd prefer to see numbers broken down by artist, label, and distributor. I've already written off the distributors as doomed by the Internet. I wouldn't be at all suprised if their margins are very low, if not negative. Most artist margins are negative, too. Take those out of the 'industry' percentages, and I'd be curious to see what you get. I don't begrudge any business making money. On the other hand, if their prices are such that half the country's population feels a need to rip them off, c'est la vie. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You're right about margins for different industries. Jewelry, in particular, has obscene margins. Then again, it taps directly into a primal need: vanity. Clothing is already marked up double digit percents for having a Tommy Pullmyfinger or Calvin Clone label sewn in. Music tries to tap into similar, primal, emotional needs. Of course, de Beers is an evil monopoly, and Nike runs sweatshops. If we're willing to let them slide, I suppose we shouldn't complain when the record labels take away our civil liberties.
You have some good points. Let me see if I have some good answers.:)
I think that the business model supporting musicians and songwriters will have to change significantly to survive. Looking at it historically, the current business model (artists employed by a private for-profit company whose purpose is making music) is fairly recent. Look at the great historical songwriters. Handel was in the employ of Dukes and Princes. Ditto for J. S. Bach. Mozart didn't make his big break until employed in the Salzburg court. Liszt, Wagner, and Strauss all worked in orchestras. If you feel that your music has more of the spirit of the chanson and madrigal, you earn your money by putting on performances. Unfortunately, the idea of writing music and words for someone else to sing is closer to operatic tradition, in which case I think you're in trouble trying to work for someone whose sole revenue stream is your work. I think that's why record labels hire lots of musicians, because they don't all make money all the time.
I don't think 'music will suffer' if 99% of musicians can't make a living from it. There were plenty of opera writers who went broke. That doesn't mean we didn't get great opera. The truth is that art is something one does for oneself, not for others. If you can get paid for it, great. If you get paid enough to make a living off of it, spectacular. I don't think it does, or even should, happen often. Once art is tainted by money, it inevitably suffers. I'm sorry, but that's my opinion.
The problem with today's music is that many of those who are making a living off it aren't succeeding because of their music, but because of their tits. I think this is the problem making the music industry 'suffer', not the hard work of songwriters or the talent of real musicians. The fact that many millions of dollars are spent literally advertising someone's ass doesn't mean I think the cameraman who suggested the best lens to bring out the roundness of the ass should get a cut. The fact that the only way they can legally enforce getting their fee is through copyright doesn't make copyright good.
If there were two changes to copyright that I would make, they would be very simple. The purpose of copyright it to promote the progress of the arts, and the person advancing the arts is the artist. Not the label, or the artist's spouse, or their best friend. For this basic reason, copyright should not last beyond the death of the artist (as an absolute maximum), nor should it be assignable or transferrable. Done. Artists promote art, and the labels have to negotiate for real product, with the leverage back in the hands of the artist (if they have something good to sell, of course). The labels might even drop the charade of arguing over copyright, and just hold open auditions for people with big tits that can hold a tune.
I addressed this awhile back in a spam thread. It's apples and oranges. The appropriate analogy would be if this guy killed 13,000 people.
If one bee stings you, it hurts. If 13,000 of them sting you, you get 15 years in jail and consider yourself lucky. It works out to about half a day per song. Shoplifting a single and getting tossed in the lockup overnight... that feels about right to me. At the very least, I don't think it's grossly disproportionate.
The big change that accounting needs to incorporate is that traditional rules of economics simply don't apply to intangible 'property'. Economic principles and markets operate on the assumption that goods are scarce, which is false in the case of intangibles. If I build a chair and someone steals it, I'll write that off as an operating loss. If I play a record and someone tapes it, there's no loss. Economists have to bootstrap scarcity into the equation using legal fictions like "copyright".
To make the distinction crystal clear, if the guy from TFA had stolen a CD from Best Buy, it would be operating loss for Best Buy. If all he stole was the music on the CD (which he borrowed from a friend because he couldn't afford to buy the disc), no loss. The reason I know that there's no loss is that if there were, it wouldn't be claimed by only Best Buy, but also by everyone else who sells the same CD. That doesn't make any sense at all.
What little I know of basic microeconomics tells me that what's going on here is a black market. People aren't willing to pay full price, so they pay less through non-legit channels. The point is that they weren't willing to pay full price, so you can't count them as customers in the first place, hence no "lost revenue". It was never there to begin with, which is what I think GP post is saying. Again, the reason that this scenario is different from ordinary retail is that the thing being 'stolen' is intangible. If my CD ends up in someone's hands without them paying me for it, I can (and should) nail them for it. This situation is different.
Black market transactions take into account the cost of being discovered. This guy is facing 15 years in jail. Usually, this cost prevents black markets unless there is a serious cost/value discrepancy, such as (in this case) artificial scarcity through legal fiction. From what I understand, the reason there's so much piracy is that many people feel that the scarcity is a little too artificial. If the sales price would come down to something actually approaching marginal cost, maybe there would be less piracy. If the music distributors can't sustain at MP=MC, then they obviously can't compete in an open market, and should fold. This is the basic cycle of destruction and renewal brought about by technological advancement, and it's been working fine for several hundred years. Why muck it up now?
Although I agree in principle that theft is wrong, I must point out that software has a functional aspect, while music does not. Britney Spears has no business customers who will go belly-up if she doesn't release an "album upgrade" (other than her label, and I doubt they'll fold). The music industry is notorious for not caring about their "end users", other than to milk them for their money. I think you'll agree that niche business markets are totally different from retail consumer markets.
I feel sorry for your loss, and I think it's a shame that your company went down because of piracy. You clearly cared about your product, and you cared about your customers. If the music industry showed the same kind of commitment, perhaps there would be less piracy.
The SR22 POH Section 7 says that the parachute has been tested while flying inverted and in spins, but "deployment in an attitude other than level flight may yield deployment characteristics other than those described above". Heh, no kidding. I think they're the ones WAGging.
I was also drilled with "never stop flying the plane." Of course, that doesn't mean "fly the plane into the ground." What it means to me is, "always keep the plane under control: predictable and safe." If I've lost positive control, for whatever reason, that's my first priority: get back to predictable and safe. Having a parachute on board is one more way I can do that. Yes, I'll bend the plane, but I'd rather do it at 20 mph than Vne.
You are assuming that "I'm flying the plane" means "the plane is under my control." That's true more than 99.9% of the time, but that's not what we're talking about here. If I blow my engine, I'm obviously not gonna pull the parachute, since the plane is still under my positive control. Same thing if I run out of gas, or other minor emergencies. I'm talking about situations in which positive control is simply impossible, like losing a wing due to mid-air, and the PIC having a stroke (in which case the wife saves everyone's life).
I don't think flying is too dangerous, or I wouldn't fly for my own safety. I don't think I'm an unsafe pilot, or I wouldn't fly for the safety of pilots like you that I share the sky with. I just think that too many GA accidents occur because the situation gets out of control, and someone (anyone!) is too afraid to break the chain because it would be embarrassing. I've had to abort a takeoff before, and I called the tower. Yeah, I was a little red-faced, but I got a tow and answered a few questions, and that was that. I'd rather take a shot to my ego and be safe on the ground, then be another greasy smear for the FAA and NTSB to deal with. Your safety methods are of course at your discretion. If we differ in our approaches, then let's just agree to disagree, but at least give me the option to use the parachute.
I'm a pilot too, ASEL. Ever been upside down in a spin? OK, how about one that you didn't plan? My first spin scared the mortal shit out of me, even if it was under control. Had I been alone in there, I would have reached for a parachute without a second thought.
If you wanna risk your life, that's your call. Just promise me that your next of kin won't sue if something unfortunate ever happens, because for my sake, I want a parachute on my plane. If I can't get the thing under control before I get close to Va (for my takeoff weight!), I'm pulling the lever.
This really pisses me off. An aviation parachute is an optional safety device. I have a great idea, if you think the parachute is your problem, why not exercise your option and insist that your plane come with NO parachute? Because that would make you a dumbass.
It's not the parachute that caused the plane crash. Rather, the parachute failed to prevent the plane from crashing. Learn the damn difference. Nine times out of ten, the actual cause of the crash is pilot error, like grandparent post already explained. It's actually much higher than nine out of ten, if you read the NTSB aircraft accident reports. It's usually a VFR pilot with "go fever", who risks flying in snow or at night over water to get back home in time so the ball & chain won't give them an earful. Or they thought they had enough gas in the tank, or they did but had to divert around bad weather or they were off course because they forgot to periodically reset their gyro compass. All mistakes that could have been easily avoided, had the pilot done the proper preflight, trip planning, and cockpit awareness routines. And none that have anything at all to do with optional safety devices.
If you pull a bonehead maneuver that risks your life, be fucking grateful someone gave you a second chance. Don't sue them, or next time they won't help you. It's asshats like this that are the reason we need Good Samaritan laws in the first place.
Advertisers, and marketing departments in general, have no reason to possess my government tax ID number. NONE. Notice I did not say sales departments, who may at least lay claim to a valid reason.
In addition, I refuse to provide my SSN to any website. Period. Even if they can reduce my junk mail. If you are running a legit business, give me a physical mailing address that I can verify. I will send you my information, certified mail with return receipt.
No, it's only about right and wrong. Balance of power is an excuse people give when they're too scared to do what they think is right. Whether or not the act is justified is what matters. Do you think the black civil rights leaders expected to be arrested? Of course they did. But they went ahead and protested anyway, because they knew they were right, and the rest of the country was wrong.
I'm not calling Sloncek a coward. He did a great service for the community for two years, and he should be commended for all the hard work he put in. But blaming the MPAA when SuprNova gets shut down is pointless. It doesn't change anything. If you really want to change the world, why don't you start a torrent search engine, get arrested, and sue? You might be the next Rosa Parks or MLK.
I'm doing my own small part by learning to be a lawyer so I can fight this. I don't expect to change the world, but I do want to be in the right place at the right time with the right skills in case someone else has the opportunity and needs my help. Go ahead, mod me down for being self-righteous and delusional. Mod me down for wanting to work behind the scenes, because you think I'm a coward. Or mod me down for putting my money (and career) where my mouth is. Or mod me down because you don't like lawyers. I really don't give a damn. I'm doing what I think is right, and I sleep well at night knowing that one day soon I'm going to get the chance to fight this crap myself. Within the proper channels.
That writing is not a contract, because there is no consideration. There is no consideration, because consideration requires a bargain. Restatement (Second) of Contracts, section 71. CompUSA is not bargaining with you. True, they did bargain for the amount on the front of the check, in exchange for whatever goods you just bought. Unfortunately for your $5 million, you already agreed to the terms of that sale, when you forked over the money. Which brings me to my point.
The point is that shrink-wrap licenses are like adding binding, material terms to a sales contract that's already been performed on both sides. That's illegal. This doesn't kill EULAs, of course -- look for them to be posted near the shelf. I'm not sure if the "go to my website" thing will hold up. It's the same as not being able to look at the terms before you buy, which is what we've got now with shrink-wrap EULAs.
It looks like MSFT got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The reason it took so long to catch them is that $200 isn't enough money for most lawyers to take a case, or enough for most people to go see a lawyer in the first place. Kudos to Cathy Baker!
Disclaimer: IAALS who just wrote his contracts exam on Friday. This is not legal advice, yadda yadda, hire a lawyer, like the woman in TFA.
What about joe-jobs, or malicious false advertising? Say I spam you with a million emails a day, claiming to be a long distance carrier. You gonna hold Sprint liable for my spam, just because I have a grudge against Sprint?
Oh yeah, and even if #3 gets implemented, the burden shifts to you to keep the filters up-to-date. Normally, legit companies generally call you on the phone (or you opt-in to an email list). They have to figure out if they have a relationship with you before they contact you. Now, you have to figure it out ahead of time, to program the filters. Yuck.
Distributing copyrighted materials isn't a crime. It doesn't matter if you have intent, and it doesn't matter what jurisdiction you're in. What makes it a crime is if you don't have permission. Duh.
Trading songs online that you don't own is illegal. Guess what, trading songs offline that you don't own is illegal too. Big surprise, right? If you need the latest of whatever passes for music these days, swap CDs with a friend. Or pay the RIAA. Or go without. Or, get sued and try to convince a judge that swapping stolen goods isn't a crime. Good luck!
Slashdot Mirror
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds...and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of...wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up, the long, delirious burning blue
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, nor even eagle flew.
And while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
N.B. I have it framed and hanging in my bedroom. It seems quite the apt description of what they are attempting.
P.S. John Magee was a pilot in the RCAF, No. 412 squadron, during WWII. He wrote the poem when he was only 19. He died a few months later.
The top DVD of last year was obviously Jersey%20Girl-DVDRip%20(Fullscreen)-avi.torrent.
Inquiring minds want to know: how much morphine do you inject before your morning circumcision, or are you just into pain?
I enjoy getting fed worthless crap by journalists who wouldn't know a real story if it walked up and shat in their cereal. It just means that truly evil people like myself can keep the rest of you schmucks in the dark when we unleash our... no, that would be giving it away. I've seen too many Kevin Smith movies to reveal all my plans before the end. Just know that when the sun gets blotted out when you least expect it, don't panic. It's already too late to panic.
To be a little more precise, in the US capitalism is the economic vehicle that the porn industry and the military industrial complex are driving to reach higher technology. Capitalism is a nice theory, but it requires money to actually make it work. That money comes from Ron Jeremy and Donald Rumsfeld. (Never thought you'd see those two in a sentence next to each other, did you?)
Without assigning any moral judgment to porn (or the military, for that matter), I simply state that those two industries contribute the largest amount of money to new technology development.
Peasant: Well, how'd you become king then?
Sanford: The Goddess of the Net, her arm clad in the purest shimmering source code, held aloft Stealth Mass Mailer from the bosom of the data stream, signifying by divine providence that I, Sanford, was to carry Stealth Mass Mailer. THAT is why I am your king.
Peasant [interrupting]: Listen, strange women lyin' in chat rooms distributin' emailers is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical IRC ceremony!
And luckily, it's already been busted. "I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage.
Must've been this one. Throwing midgets is really fun, if they're virtual midgets.
You need to keep in mind the number of counts on the docket. He warezed 13,000 titles. If he killed 13,000 people and only got 15 years, then I'd say our justice system was broken. Or if he warezed ONE title and got 15 years, I'd call foul. This is proportional justice.
As for the 'industry' margins, I'd prefer to see numbers broken down by artist, label, and distributor. I've already written off the distributors as doomed by the Internet. I wouldn't be at all suprised if their margins are very low, if not negative. Most artist margins are negative, too. Take those out of the 'industry' percentages, and I'd be curious to see what you get. I don't begrudge any business making money. On the other hand, if their prices are such that half the country's population feels a need to rip them off, c'est la vie. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You're right about margins for different industries. Jewelry, in particular, has obscene margins. Then again, it taps directly into a primal need: vanity. Clothing is already marked up double digit percents for having a Tommy Pullmyfinger or Calvin Clone label sewn in. Music tries to tap into similar, primal, emotional needs. Of course, de Beers is an evil monopoly, and Nike runs sweatshops. If we're willing to let them slide, I suppose we shouldn't complain when the record labels take away our civil liberties.
I think that the business model supporting musicians and songwriters will have to change significantly to survive. Looking at it historically, the current business model (artists employed by a private for-profit company whose purpose is making music) is fairly recent. Look at the great historical songwriters. Handel was in the employ of Dukes and Princes. Ditto for J. S. Bach. Mozart didn't make his big break until employed in the Salzburg court. Liszt, Wagner, and Strauss all worked in orchestras. If you feel that your music has more of the spirit of the chanson and madrigal, you earn your money by putting on performances. Unfortunately, the idea of writing music and words for someone else to sing is closer to operatic tradition, in which case I think you're in trouble trying to work for someone whose sole revenue stream is your work. I think that's why record labels hire lots of musicians, because they don't all make money all the time.
I don't think 'music will suffer' if 99% of musicians can't make a living from it. There were plenty of opera writers who went broke. That doesn't mean we didn't get great opera. The truth is that art is something one does for oneself, not for others. If you can get paid for it, great. If you get paid enough to make a living off of it, spectacular. I don't think it does, or even should, happen often. Once art is tainted by money, it inevitably suffers. I'm sorry, but that's my opinion.
The problem with today's music is that many of those who are making a living off it aren't succeeding because of their music, but because of their tits. I think this is the problem making the music industry 'suffer', not the hard work of songwriters or the talent of real musicians. The fact that many millions of dollars are spent literally advertising someone's ass doesn't mean I think the cameraman who suggested the best lens to bring out the roundness of the ass should get a cut. The fact that the only way they can legally enforce getting their fee is through copyright doesn't make copyright good.
If there were two changes to copyright that I would make, they would be very simple. The purpose of copyright it to promote the progress of the arts, and the person advancing the arts is the artist. Not the label, or the artist's spouse, or their best friend. For this basic reason, copyright should not last beyond the death of the artist (as an absolute maximum), nor should it be assignable or transferrable. Done. Artists promote art, and the labels have to negotiate for real product, with the leverage back in the hands of the artist (if they have something good to sell, of course). The labels might even drop the charade of arguing over copyright, and just hold open auditions for people with big tits that can hold a tune.
If one bee stings you, it hurts. If 13,000 of them sting you, you get 15 years in jail and consider yourself lucky. It works out to about half a day per song. Shoplifting a single and getting tossed in the lockup overnight... that feels about right to me. At the very least, I don't think it's grossly disproportionate.
To make the distinction crystal clear, if the guy from TFA had stolen a CD from Best Buy, it would be operating loss for Best Buy. If all he stole was the music on the CD (which he borrowed from a friend because he couldn't afford to buy the disc), no loss. The reason I know that there's no loss is that if there were, it wouldn't be claimed by only Best Buy, but also by everyone else who sells the same CD. That doesn't make any sense at all.
What little I know of basic microeconomics tells me that what's going on here is a black market. People aren't willing to pay full price, so they pay less through non-legit channels. The point is that they weren't willing to pay full price, so you can't count them as customers in the first place, hence no "lost revenue". It was never there to begin with, which is what I think GP post is saying. Again, the reason that this scenario is different from ordinary retail is that the thing being 'stolen' is intangible. If my CD ends up in someone's hands without them paying me for it, I can (and should) nail them for it. This situation is different.
Black market transactions take into account the cost of being discovered. This guy is facing 15 years in jail. Usually, this cost prevents black markets unless there is a serious cost/value discrepancy, such as (in this case) artificial scarcity through legal fiction. From what I understand, the reason there's so much piracy is that many people feel that the scarcity is a little too artificial. If the sales price would come down to something actually approaching marginal cost, maybe there would be less piracy. If the music distributors can't sustain at MP=MC, then they obviously can't compete in an open market, and should fold. This is the basic cycle of destruction and renewal brought about by technological advancement, and it's been working fine for several hundred years. Why muck it up now?
I feel sorry for your loss, and I think it's a shame that your company went down because of piracy. You clearly cared about your product, and you cared about your customers. If the music industry showed the same kind of commitment, perhaps there would be less piracy.
I was also drilled with "never stop flying the plane." Of course, that doesn't mean "fly the plane into the ground." What it means to me is, "always keep the plane under control: predictable and safe." If I've lost positive control, for whatever reason, that's my first priority: get back to predictable and safe. Having a parachute on board is one more way I can do that. Yes, I'll bend the plane, but I'd rather do it at 20 mph than Vne.
You are assuming that "I'm flying the plane" means "the plane is under my control." That's true more than 99.9% of the time, but that's not what we're talking about here. If I blow my engine, I'm obviously not gonna pull the parachute, since the plane is still under my positive control. Same thing if I run out of gas, or other minor emergencies. I'm talking about situations in which positive control is simply impossible, like losing a wing due to mid-air, and the PIC having a stroke (in which case the wife saves everyone's life).
I don't think flying is too dangerous, or I wouldn't fly for my own safety. I don't think I'm an unsafe pilot, or I wouldn't fly for the safety of pilots like you that I share the sky with. I just think that too many GA accidents occur because the situation gets out of control, and someone (anyone!) is too afraid to break the chain because it would be embarrassing. I've had to abort a takeoff before, and I called the tower. Yeah, I was a little red-faced, but I got a tow and answered a few questions, and that was that. I'd rather take a shot to my ego and be safe on the ground, then be another greasy smear for the FAA and NTSB to deal with. Your safety methods are of course at your discretion. If we differ in our approaches, then let's just agree to disagree, but at least give me the option to use the parachute.
If you wanna risk your life, that's your call. Just promise me that your next of kin won't sue if something unfortunate ever happens, because for my sake, I want a parachute on my plane. If I can't get the thing under control before I get close to Va (for my takeoff weight!), I'm pulling the lever.
It's not the parachute that caused the plane crash. Rather, the parachute failed to prevent the plane from crashing. Learn the damn difference. Nine times out of ten, the actual cause of the crash is pilot error, like grandparent post already explained. It's actually much higher than nine out of ten, if you read the NTSB aircraft accident reports. It's usually a VFR pilot with "go fever", who risks flying in snow or at night over water to get back home in time so the ball & chain won't give them an earful. Or they thought they had enough gas in the tank, or they did but had to divert around bad weather or they were off course because they forgot to periodically reset their gyro compass. All mistakes that could have been easily avoided, had the pilot done the proper preflight, trip planning, and cockpit awareness routines. And none that have anything at all to do with optional safety devices.
If you pull a bonehead maneuver that risks your life, be fucking grateful someone gave you a second chance. Don't sue them, or next time they won't help you. It's asshats like this that are the reason we need Good Samaritan laws in the first place.
In addition, I refuse to provide my SSN to any website. Period. Even if they can reduce my junk mail. If you are running a legit business, give me a physical mailing address that I can verify. I will send you my information, certified mail with return receipt.
I thought this was a thread about privacy.
I think if there were a radar 23000 miles tall, I'd have heard about it by now. Duh.
Before he gets to changing the calendar, I think he needs to push for a new, static web page.
I'm not calling Sloncek a coward. He did a great service for the community for two years, and he should be commended for all the hard work he put in. But blaming the MPAA when SuprNova gets shut down is pointless. It doesn't change anything. If you really want to change the world, why don't you start a torrent search engine, get arrested, and sue? You might be the next Rosa Parks or MLK.
I'm doing my own small part by learning to be a lawyer so I can fight this. I don't expect to change the world, but I do want to be in the right place at the right time with the right skills in case someone else has the opportunity and needs my help. Go ahead, mod me down for being self-righteous and delusional. Mod me down for wanting to work behind the scenes, because you think I'm a coward. Or mod me down for putting my money (and career) where my mouth is. Or mod me down because you don't like lawyers. I really don't give a damn. I'm doing what I think is right, and I sleep well at night knowing that one day soon I'm going to get the chance to fight this crap myself. Within the proper channels.
The point is that shrink-wrap licenses are like adding binding, material terms to a sales contract that's already been performed on both sides. That's illegal. This doesn't kill EULAs, of course -- look for them to be posted near the shelf. I'm not sure if the "go to my website" thing will hold up. It's the same as not being able to look at the terms before you buy, which is what we've got now with shrink-wrap EULAs.
It looks like MSFT got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The reason it took so long to catch them is that $200 isn't enough money for most lawyers to take a case, or enough for most people to go see a lawyer in the first place. Kudos to Cathy Baker!
Disclaimer: IAALS who just wrote his contracts exam on Friday. This is not legal advice, yadda yadda, hire a lawyer, like the woman in TFA.
Oh yeah, and even if #3 gets implemented, the burden shifts to you to keep the filters up-to-date. Normally, legit companies generally call you on the phone (or you opt-in to an email list). They have to figure out if they have a relationship with you before they contact you. Now, you have to figure it out ahead of time, to program the filters. Yuck.
What about the Berne Convention? Russia and China signed it. The US has been a member for 15 years.
Trading songs online that you don't own is illegal. Guess what, trading songs offline that you don't own is illegal too. Big surprise, right? If you need the latest of whatever passes for music these days, swap CDs with a friend. Or pay the RIAA. Or go without. Or, get sued and try to convince a judge that swapping stolen goods isn't a crime. Good luck!