"This statment is making a false dichotomy of dropping accident rates and increasing phone use."
No, you misunderstand the intent. You are analyzing it as a scientific hypothesis test. What I'm saying is the argument becomes pointless. It's not a causal relationship discussion.
Could the number of accidents be reduced (even further) if cellphone usage is banned? Perhaps. Could accidents be reduced if radios and stereos were outlawed? Perhaps. Same with banning passengers, food, thinking about work, pretty women on sidewalks,...
The question is what is reasonable, not what minimizes the number of accidents. If cellphone use in cars is rampant and there are actually fewer total accidents, one can't really argue that it's reasonable to ban them. Why wouldn't the same argument apply to all of the other distractions. Why do people just pick on cellphones? I don't see studies on whether banning radios might reduce accidents, even though it probably would.
"Let's make fun of them so we can feel all smug and righteous."
No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it. That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news. We don't make fun to feel smug and righteous. We make fun because we're concerned about your massive ignorance of worldly events and how it drives your politics. If you checked out the "Talking to Americans" website from the grandparent post, you'll see that most of it was talking to American politicians and some "influential" celebrities. These are the people that influence what Americans believe and are supposed to know about the world around them, and they clearly don't.
But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people. We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election. (OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have.) We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media. Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive. But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.
"Since both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have these sorts of histories then it seems like the underdog is looking mighty competitive."
You've never run a real major project, have you. See, since Boeing and Lockheed have a history of going over budget and missing deadlines it is predicable and you take that into account in your budget and schedule (buffers), though not publically. The "underdog" who bids low will end up costing more because of the learning curve and they don't have the infrastructure in place, but is too naive to realize what is involved since they don't have the experience. We've seen this many times.
"A person in the passenger seat can generally point out if you are about to rear-end someone..."
I find it worse with the person in the car. A cellphone I can drop or tell them to hold on if traffic gets rough. With someone in the car you can't make them shut up or stop blocking your view.
That's the problem with these types of studies. It's nice to compare the effects of cell phone use with the nominal "no distraction" case, but doesn't answer the right questions. At least this one compared it to drinking, which is a start. But has anyone compared other distractions (radio, passengers, kids, drinking coffee, etc.)? People tend to use these studies to justify outlawing the use of cellphones in cars, but if they are comparable to other normal distractions then by the same argument those things (radio, passengers, kids) should be outlawed too. (Actually, there were attempts to outlaw car radios in the 20's and 30's in some places.)
What I find more impressive studies is the change in accident rates correlated to cellphone usage. In the last 10 years cellphone usage has skyrocketed and I've seen it reported several times that accident rates have actually dropped by 10% in that time. If true, which I'd need to see the actual statistics and studies to believe, then these arguments against cellphones in cars are pointless.
"No doubt the underdog will come up with a far cheaper design that would save Nasa millions"
Cheap only accounts for one small criterion in the selection. I would imagine that experience would be of far greater importance. Not that the underdog shouldn't win, or doesn't have any experience, but if you were hiring someone to manage a critical huge project for your company would you hire somebody with 20 years experience doing this type of work or a new kid out of school who built a toy model of what you need for a science fair?
" I get this PC to do plenty of different things. Does your PC only do 1 thing then?"
Here Statement! Here boy! Time to get back in your context. There you go, good boy.
Of course PCs do more than one thing. The context is Microsoft's "digital lifestyle" and Bill Gates' comments. I don't want the same PC I surf the web and edit pictures to be running my furnace and AC, controlling my phone lines, controlling the lights, logging video feeds of my security camera, telling me I need more milk, providing my home entertainment, and whatever else you can come up with. For controlling my environment, media, etc., I want a machine that is dedicated to one thing and does it very well.
Fine, it might be nice to network some things so that I can get a single report on the status on everything at one location, or activate them from one location, but that different from running it all from a single machine. If the network or base station goes down all of the individual machines still work. If one machine controlling everything goes down then everything dies at once. My food will thaw, my house will freeze, burglars can break in, I can't call anyone, and to top it off I can't watch my favorite shows to calm me as my world collapses around me.
"The government wants people to give up their rights, either voluntarily or through attrition."
Absolutely. Propaganda works wonders. After all, how else do you explain that half of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11. It certainly doesn't suprise me that students don't understand what the government can and can't do when they don't learn it in schools and the media doesn't cover it because it isn't sex, violence, or an entertaining show.
"'People don't want lots and lots of single purpose devices"
Um, some people do. Having one multi-purpose device running everything means there is a single point of failure. You could build in tons of redundancy on everything (essentially multiple PC's) but then that's not much different (and more expensive) than multple devices to begin with.
I still say that we'd be much better off spending resources on dealing with the effects of global climate changes.
I'd add that we'd also probably be better off spending resources on reducing pollution that is clearly known to kill people, animals, and plants, rather than focusing on greenhouse gases where the science is still quite controversal and contested.
This all just highlights something that we've been annoyed with for sometime at work. There's multiple standards (e.g. MPEG-4), and each standard can be used in multiple codecs (e.g. Xvid, DivX), and different codecs can be used in the same container format (e.g., avi, qt). The possible combinations are astronomical and you can never know if you can or can't actually view a video until you try and it say you can't, at which point you have to find out which players can play the container format and if you can locate and/or install the codec. It's a nightmare, especially if getting video from multiple cameras, websites, customers, etc. Plus we don't have admin rights at work on our PCs to install things like codecs, not to mention some are not freely available.
Something has got to change. Beta versus VHS was nothing compared to this craziness. Is there any chance that this'll all settle down into a couple of standard codecs and file formats? Even my own video camera has a proprietary codec that I have to convert for other people to see, especially for my mom on her Mac.
Over the short term, but in the long run it costs them more (as mentioned in the example).
"But then new competitors move in, because they can make a profit at the higher price, which forces the monolpolist to lower prices again, and keep them there, to keep out competition."
That may be true for this specific example, but imagine a case where the monopolist bakery sets up a system where you get your bread delivered automatically with the morning paper and the money is automatically withdrawn. In order to cancel this service you have to call the bakery service line, then call the newspaper service, then call your bank, each time waiting for a service agent. Now a competing bakery can't just offer lower prices to take away the monopolist's customers. They must first get the word to the customers (who don't shop around anymore becuase everything is automated) and offer something that is worth the hassle the customers would have to go through to make the change. It's not the price that the competition has to overcome, it's the hassle the customers have to go through to change.
This is a more appropriate analogy to the Microsoft case. Switching from Microsoft is more than a cost issue. Just look at the available alternatives to MS Office. Most are cheaper (or even free) and offer the same, similar, or better features and quality. Yet people aren't dropping MS Office like a hot potatoe because of the hassle involved in switching. (In the case of businesses, "hassle" equates to "cost" and "lost production".) The same could be said for operating systems. Microsofts business model is closer to a drug pusher's than a bakery.
Cheaper price over a short term (in a given market) does not mean it's best for the consumers in the long run. They are asking the wrong question.
The only way an *unearned* monopoly can exist is through government force.
Not true at all. Microsoft uses (used?) its dominance in one market to force or bias usage of its products in other markets. This is more or less what the antitrust suits are all about. When an 800 lb gorilla like Microsoft tells vendors to only sell their products or they'll stop selling through them the vendor must comply.
An earned monopoly comes from making the best product at a good cost value. Even MS dominance in Windows wasn't driven by it necessarily being the best product, it was because MS made exclusive deals to have their operating systems installed on PCs at the point of sale. Why would a consumer go through the hassle of finding another (better) OS, paying extra for it, removing the MS OS, and installing the new one. MS might have earned it in the "shrewd businessman" kind of "earned", but not in the "best product and value" kind of "earned".
"The party considered to have a "balanced" position here is not MGM, it is the Video Software Dealers Association."
Yes. And they also discuss the issue of DRM and that any remedy in this case (such as DRM) should not expand the copyright holders rights to allow them to effectly stop consumers from using the works legally, including selling (transfer of title) or legal copying of the work, which presumably includes fair use, expired copyrights, etc.
BTW, I'm not sure I'd got so far as to say the VSDA position is balanced, it's more of self-interested. They have several interests they specifically mention:
They want P2P for potential business opportunities.
They don't want copyright holders' rights broadened beyond the statutes by allowing them to control the technology and mechanisms of reproduction and distribution. Video dealers right now have rights that would be eroded by this.
They don't want P2P to continue allowing wholesale infringement because it bypasses them as middlemen and distributers, putting them out of business.
I don't think they're "in the middle" to be fair to both sides, but rather to protect their own interests. Plus, really, I think their position is a lot closer to MGM than Grokster. They do want the ruling overturned and some form of DRM imposed on P2P, though perhaps not as restrictive as MGM would like.
"Can you take away rights of the innocent in order to prevent illegal actions?"
If you read the brief (which is a rather long read, especially by/. standards), that is one of the core issues discussed by the VSDA. They argue that in the Betamax case Sony won largely because there was no remedy that could reduce the probability and gravity of copyright infringement without creating an unduly large burdon on others. Although not specifically addressed in Betamax, VSDA noted these burdons included First Amendment issues (stifling the free speech of copyright holders who want to permit use of the technology for their expressions), expanding the rights of copyright holders beyond beyond those legislative provided (control over the products on which their copyrighted works are performed), and competion issues (copyright holders suppressing the works of other copyright holders by limiting the technology for distribution).
The VSDA tries to differentiate P2P by pointing out that it need not be an "all-or-nothing" remedy, that the infringing and non-infringing uses need not be "enjoined". They don't specifically say that such technology exists to separate infringing from non-infringing (though they imply it), but rather they state that none of the lower courts examined this possibility largely because they erroneously only viewed the software as it currently existed and not some hypothetically different software that could tell the difference. (For the reasons why they only considered the current software, checkout the transcript of the 9th Circuit arguments or listen it in one of the available formats.)
Generally, the answer seems to be no, you can't take away the rights of the innocent to prevent the illegal activities, but really it is a balance of probability, level of harm caused by the activity, and the burdon such a remedy would impose. It's seems it's not a black-or-white issue but one of balance, though thankfully tilted towards the freedom side.
Though VSDA's arguments seem to be well research and argued (though IANAL), I see one major flaw. Their argument seems to rely on the fact that the types of remedies available if Grokster is found guilty should have bearing on whether they should be found guilty. Though they discuss this briefly it seems to be glossed over without much focus. It is my understanding that remedy can only be considered after a finding of liability. It's analagous in criminal law to finding someone innocent or guilty based on what punishments are available to punish them, which just doesn't make sense.
In civil law it seems a little less clear to me. They argue (with precedence) that liability depends on whether or not there was an ability to prevent the infringement, and this ability goes beyond the existing structure (e.g., software) to hypothetical actions. They cite the other big case (after Betamax) in which a swap-meet organizer refused to stop a vendor from selling infringing works and was held liable because he could have added to the contracts that vendors must not be infringing copyrights, which was the remedy.
Overall, and interesting read. They want Grokster overturned (found liable), but clearly want the remedy to require P2P to separate infringing and non-infringing works. They want to make use of P2P for business purposes, or at least don't want it shut down. That doesn't mean it's possible, or can be done without undue burdon. I still find Grokster's arguments much more compelling, though I'm admittedly biased.
Re:You know...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Are you implying that Bush won because he bribed the voters?
I suspect he meant that it was only through Bush's connections that he got in, especially with respect to the Florida recounts in 2000. Or it could have meant that he only got in because of the blatant propaganda spread via the major media outlets who refuse to project Bush in a bad light or ask the tough questions because they get blacklisted for key opportunties offered by the Bush admin (embedded journalists, White House invites, interviews, etc.). Such opportunities could be considered as bribery and are certainly working in that respect.
""D'eau" would be used to mean "of water" - "une bouteille d'eau" == "a bottle of water"."
Yes, and I'm not sure why we'd have to go to French to get a meaning for D'oh. Homer is English-speaking and "dough" is an English word. Plus it it what doughnuts are made from. I figure since Americans shortened "doughnuts" to "donuts", and Homer is lazy and likes donuts, he just shortened it to "D'oh". (=
It also could be a contraction for "damn, oh!" or preferably "oh damn".
"...then they should be able to retain a good legal team because that team can expect to be paid (eventually) out of evil rich spammer's deep pockets rather than the poor complainers."
I think this already exists on the other side of the coin. Some legal teams will take cases (on the plaintiff side), such as class actions, with no direct cost to the plaintiffs on the basis that they take a certain percentage of the winnings or a flat fee from it. Essentially, the lawyers are gambling that the case is good enough that they can win and win enough to cover their expenses and a tidy profit. This approach allows the "little guy" or groups to sue big companies who are screwing them.
Your proposal would bring this option to the defendant side. Lawyers could gamble (after reviewing the merits of the defense) that they can win the case and get paid by the plaintiff. Not a bad idea, but there's a few flaws:
Fees would have to set before trial, and perhaps even hours. Otherwise the lawyers could claim $10,000/hour and work very inefficiently (100 hours per week but only get about 40 hours of productive work done).
The lawyers will only get their claimed fee. In the current case where they're on the plaintiff side they gamble on huge winnings which is like a jackpot for them, far and above their normal hourly rate (which can pay for the cases they lose plus their fancy sports cars).
The plaintiff can just drop the case part way through, and they'd never get paid. When they gamble on the plaintiff side they have lots of control over the status of the case: pressing ahead if they think they can win, dropping it if it turns sour and cutting their losses, or proposing or accepting a deal with the defendant. On the defendant side, they can't stop the plaintiff from dropping the case after they put in hundreds or thousands of hours of work.
Who pays for the plaintiffs lawyers if the defendant loses? The defending lawyer who took on the case as a gamble (losing both their salary and paying the plaintiff lawyers) or the defendants themselves, who can't afford it. Gambling on a plaintiff case the lawyers only risk their own salary and expenses.
Related to above, there's no guarantee that the defendant can find such a lawyer, so they might get stuck with Joe Schmoe. Why would a Joe Schmoe lawyer take such a case? His chance of winning are small so he'd only get what the defendent can pay, which is nothing if the defendant also has to pay the expensive plaintiff lawyers. Basically, if a defendant can't find a high priced lawyer willing to gamble, he might as well not defend himself at all since he won't find any lawyer.
Excellent. I was hoping someone with more knowledge than me about the particulars of the U.S. judicial system would find that there is such as system in place (or close to). I hope these things exist in all juristictions.
"Why, the legal process ought to be open only to those people whose arguments you and I already agree with."
I think the point was the use of lawsuits for what is effectively extortion and partly bullying. The legal process should have a mechanism such that a case can be reviewed for frivolousness before it costs the defendant a cent. There should also be an automatic fine or other penalties for cases deemed frivolous under such a system as a means of discouraging people (especially lawyers) from submitting them unless they're pretty sure they have a good case.
"you should move immediately for the case to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit"
The problem is that just to get to the point that you can ask for the lawsuit to be dismissed will probably cost you thousands of dollars. Just to sit down with a lawyer to look over the suit in the first case might cost you a few hundred. Even a few thousand dollars can break the bank for some people.
There should be a system (perhaps there is, and someone can point me to it) whereby an individual can ask for a case to be reviewed before even talking to a lawyer. This is just taking schoolyard bullying to a higher level -- if you fight back it will only get worse for you even if you eventually win by getting the bully in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you misunderstand the intent. You are analyzing it as a scientific hypothesis test. What I'm saying is the argument becomes pointless. It's not a causal relationship discussion.
Could the number of accidents be reduced (even further) if cellphone usage is banned? Perhaps. Could accidents be reduced if radios and stereos were outlawed? Perhaps. Same with banning passengers, food, thinking about work, pretty women on sidewalks, ...
The question is what is reasonable, not what minimizes the number of accidents. If cellphone use in cars is rampant and there are actually fewer total accidents, one can't really argue that it's reasonable to ban them. Why wouldn't the same argument apply to all of the other distractions. Why do people just pick on cellphones? I don't see studies on whether banning radios might reduce accidents, even though it probably would.
No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it. That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news. We don't make fun to feel smug and righteous. We make fun because we're concerned about your massive ignorance of worldly events and how it drives your politics. If you checked out the "Talking to Americans" website from the grandparent post, you'll see that most of it was talking to American politicians and some "influential" celebrities. These are the people that influence what Americans believe and are supposed to know about the world around them, and they clearly don't.
But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people. We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election. (OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have.) We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media. Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive. But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.
You've never run a real major project, have you. See, since Boeing and Lockheed have a history of going over budget and missing deadlines it is predicable and you take that into account in your budget and schedule (buffers), though not publically. The "underdog" who bids low will end up costing more because of the learning curve and they don't have the infrastructure in place, but is too naive to realize what is involved since they don't have the experience. We've seen this many times.
I find it worse with the person in the car. A cellphone I can drop or tell them to hold on if traffic gets rough. With someone in the car you can't make them shut up or stop blocking your view.
That's the problem with these types of studies. It's nice to compare the effects of cell phone use with the nominal "no distraction" case, but doesn't answer the right questions. At least this one compared it to drinking, which is a start. But has anyone compared other distractions (radio, passengers, kids, drinking coffee, etc.)? People tend to use these studies to justify outlawing the use of cellphones in cars, but if they are comparable to other normal distractions then by the same argument those things (radio, passengers, kids) should be outlawed too. (Actually, there were attempts to outlaw car radios in the 20's and 30's in some places.)
What I find more impressive studies is the change in accident rates correlated to cellphone usage. In the last 10 years cellphone usage has skyrocketed and I've seen it reported several times that accident rates have actually dropped by 10% in that time. If true, which I'd need to see the actual statistics and studies to believe, then these arguments against cellphones in cars are pointless.
Cheap only accounts for one small criterion in the selection. I would imagine that experience would be of far greater importance. Not that the underdog shouldn't win, or doesn't have any experience, but if you were hiring someone to manage a critical huge project for your company would you hire somebody with 20 years experience doing this type of work or a new kid out of school who built a toy model of what you need for a science fair?
Instead of a series of posts claiming "they missed ..." one by one, why not list
them all in one go.
'Cause I gotta have faith
I gotta have faith
I gotta have faith, faith, faith
I gotta have faith, faith, faith
Ironically the two cases you mention aren't that different. The case of pi is just easier to demonstrate and the model behind it is more complete.
Here Statement! Here boy! Time to get back in your context. There you go, good boy.
Of course PCs do more than one thing. The context is Microsoft's "digital lifestyle" and Bill Gates' comments. I don't want the same PC I surf the web and edit pictures to be running my furnace and AC, controlling my phone lines, controlling the lights, logging video feeds of my security camera, telling me I need more milk, providing my home entertainment, and whatever else you can come up with. For controlling my environment, media, etc., I want a machine that is dedicated to one thing and does it very well.
Fine, it might be nice to network some things so that I can get a single report on the status on everything at one location, or activate them from one location, but that different from running it all from a single machine. If the network or base station goes down all of the individual machines still work. If one machine controlling everything goes down then everything dies at once. My food will thaw, my house will freeze, burglars can break in, I can't call anyone, and to top it off I can't watch my favorite shows to calm me as my world collapses around me.
Absolutely. Propaganda works wonders. After all, how else do you explain that half of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11. It certainly doesn't suprise me that students don't understand what the government can and can't do when they don't learn it in schools and the media doesn't cover it because it isn't sex, violence, or an entertaining show.
Um, some people do. Having one multi-purpose device running everything means there is a single point of failure. You could build in tons of redundancy on everything (essentially multiple PC's) but then that's not much different (and more expensive) than multple devices to begin with.
I'd add that we'd also probably be better off spending resources on reducing pollution that is clearly known to kill people, animals, and plants, rather than focusing on greenhouse gases where the science is still quite controversal and contested.
I was thinking that they could finally make a live-action movie of the original Mighty Hercules, without cheesy CGI or claymation for Newton and Toot.
Something has got to change. Beta versus VHS was nothing compared to this craziness. Is there any chance that this'll all settle down into a couple of standard codecs and file formats? Even my own video camera has a proprietary codec that I have to convert for other people to see, especially for my mom on her Mac.
Over the short term, but in the long run it costs them more (as mentioned in the example).
"But then new competitors move in, because they can make a profit at the higher price, which forces the monolpolist to lower prices again, and keep them there, to keep out competition."
That may be true for this specific example, but imagine a case where the monopolist bakery sets up a system where you get your bread delivered automatically with the morning paper and the money is automatically withdrawn. In order to cancel this service you have to call the bakery service line, then call the newspaper service, then call your bank, each time waiting for a service agent. Now a competing bakery can't just offer lower prices to take away the monopolist's customers. They must first get the word to the customers (who don't shop around anymore becuase everything is automated) and offer something that is worth the hassle the customers would have to go through to make the change. It's not the price that the competition has to overcome, it's the hassle the customers have to go through to change.
This is a more appropriate analogy to the Microsoft case. Switching from Microsoft is more than a cost issue. Just look at the available alternatives to MS Office. Most are cheaper (or even free) and offer the same, similar, or better features and quality. Yet people aren't dropping MS Office like a hot potatoe because of the hassle involved in switching. (In the case of businesses, "hassle" equates to "cost" and "lost production".) The same could be said for operating systems. Microsofts business model is closer to a drug pusher's than a bakery.
Cheaper price over a short term (in a given market) does not mean it's best for the consumers in the long run. They are asking the wrong question.
Not true at all. Microsoft uses (used?) its dominance in one market to force or bias usage of its products in other markets. This is more or less what the antitrust suits are all about. When an 800 lb gorilla like Microsoft tells vendors to only sell their products or they'll stop selling through them the vendor must comply.
An earned monopoly comes from making the best product at a good cost value. Even MS dominance in Windows wasn't driven by it necessarily being the best product, it was because MS made exclusive deals to have their operating systems installed on PCs at the point of sale. Why would a consumer go through the hassle of finding another (better) OS, paying extra for it, removing the MS OS, and installing the new one. MS might have earned it in the "shrewd businessman" kind of "earned", but not in the "best product and value" kind of "earned".
Yes. And they also discuss the issue of DRM and that any remedy in this case (such as DRM) should not expand the copyright holders rights to allow them to effectly stop consumers from using the works legally, including selling (transfer of title) or legal copying of the work, which presumably includes fair use, expired copyrights, etc.
BTW, I'm not sure I'd got so far as to say the VSDA position is balanced, it's more of self-interested. They have several interests they specifically mention:
They want P2P for potential business opportunities.
They don't want copyright holders' rights broadened beyond the statutes by allowing them to control the technology and mechanisms of reproduction and distribution. Video dealers right now have rights that would be eroded by this.
They don't want P2P to continue allowing wholesale infringement because it bypasses them as middlemen and distributers, putting them out of business.
I don't think they're "in the middle" to be fair to both sides, but rather to protect their own interests. Plus, really, I think their position is a lot closer to MGM than Grokster. They do want the ruling overturned and some form of DRM imposed on P2P, though perhaps not as restrictive as MGM would like.
If you read the brief (which is a rather long read, especially by /. standards), that is one of the core issues discussed by the VSDA. They argue that in the Betamax case Sony won largely because there was no remedy that could reduce the probability and gravity of copyright infringement without creating an unduly large burdon on others. Although not specifically addressed in Betamax, VSDA noted these burdons included First Amendment issues (stifling the free speech of copyright holders who want to permit use of the technology for their expressions), expanding the rights of copyright holders beyond beyond those legislative provided (control over the products on which their copyrighted works are performed), and competion issues (copyright holders suppressing the works of other copyright holders by limiting the technology for distribution).
The VSDA tries to differentiate P2P by pointing out that it need not be an "all-or-nothing" remedy, that the infringing and non-infringing uses need not be "enjoined". They don't specifically say that such technology exists to separate infringing from non-infringing (though they imply it), but rather they state that none of the lower courts examined this possibility largely because they erroneously only viewed the software as it currently existed and not some hypothetically different software that could tell the difference. (For the reasons why they only considered the current software, checkout the transcript of the 9th Circuit arguments or listen it in one of the available formats.)
Generally, the answer seems to be no, you can't take away the rights of the innocent to prevent the illegal activities, but really it is a balance of probability, level of harm caused by the activity, and the burdon such a remedy would impose. It's seems it's not a black-or-white issue but one of balance, though thankfully tilted towards the freedom side.
Though VSDA's arguments seem to be well research and argued (though IANAL), I see one major flaw. Their argument seems to rely on the fact that the types of remedies available if Grokster is found guilty should have bearing on whether they should be found guilty. Though they discuss this briefly it seems to be glossed over without much focus. It is my understanding that remedy can only be considered after a finding of liability. It's analagous in criminal law to finding someone innocent or guilty based on what punishments are available to punish them, which just doesn't make sense.
In civil law it seems a little less clear to me. They argue (with precedence) that liability depends on whether or not there was an ability to prevent the infringement, and this ability goes beyond the existing structure (e.g., software) to hypothetical actions. They cite the other big case (after Betamax) in which a swap-meet organizer refused to stop a vendor from selling infringing works and was held liable because he could have added to the contracts that vendors must not be infringing copyrights, which was the remedy.
Overall, and interesting read. They want Grokster overturned (found liable), but clearly want the remedy to require P2P to separate infringing and non-infringing works. They want to make use of P2P for business purposes, or at least don't want it shut down. That doesn't mean it's possible, or can be done without undue burdon. I still find Grokster's arguments much more compelling, though I'm admittedly biased.
I suspect he meant that it was only through Bush's connections that he got in, especially with respect to the Florida recounts in 2000. Or it could have meant that he only got in because of the blatant propaganda spread via the major media outlets who refuse to project Bush in a bad light or ask the tough questions because they get blacklisted for key opportunties offered by the Bush admin (embedded journalists, White House invites, interviews, etc.). Such opportunities could be considered as bribery and are certainly working in that respect.
Yes, and I'm not sure why we'd have to go to French to get a meaning for D'oh. Homer is English-speaking and "dough" is an English word. Plus it it what doughnuts are made from. I figure since Americans shortened "doughnuts" to "donuts", and Homer is lazy and likes donuts, he just shortened it to "D'oh". (=
It also could be a contraction for "damn, oh!" or preferably "oh damn".
I think this already exists on the other side of the coin. Some legal teams will take cases (on the plaintiff side), such as class actions, with no direct cost to the plaintiffs on the basis that they take a certain percentage of the winnings or a flat fee from it. Essentially, the lawyers are gambling that the case is good enough that they can win and win enough to cover their expenses and a tidy profit. This approach allows the "little guy" or groups to sue big companies who are screwing them.
Your proposal would bring this option to the defendant side. Lawyers could gamble (after reviewing the merits of the defense) that they can win the case and get paid by the plaintiff. Not a bad idea, but there's a few flaws:
Fees would have to set before trial, and perhaps even hours. Otherwise the lawyers could claim $10,000/hour and work very inefficiently (100 hours per week but only get about 40 hours of productive work done).
The lawyers will only get their claimed fee. In the current case where they're on the plaintiff side they gamble on huge winnings which is like a jackpot for them, far and above their normal hourly rate (which can pay for the cases they lose plus their fancy sports cars).
The plaintiff can just drop the case part way through, and they'd never get paid. When they gamble on the plaintiff side they have lots of control over the status of the case: pressing ahead if they think they can win, dropping it if it turns sour and cutting their losses, or proposing or accepting a deal with the defendant. On the defendant side, they can't stop the plaintiff from dropping the case after they put in hundreds or thousands of hours of work.
Who pays for the plaintiffs lawyers if the defendant loses? The defending lawyer who took on the case as a gamble (losing both their salary and paying the plaintiff lawyers) or the defendants themselves, who can't afford it. Gambling on a plaintiff case the lawyers only risk their own salary and expenses.
Related to above, there's no guarantee that the defendant can find such a lawyer, so they might get stuck with Joe Schmoe. Why would a Joe Schmoe lawyer take such a case? His chance of winning are small so he'd only get what the defendent can pay, which is nothing if the defendant also has to pay the expensive plaintiff lawyers. Basically, if a defendant can't find a high priced lawyer willing to gamble, he might as well not defend himself at all since he won't find any lawyer.
Good idea, but needs some tweaking.
Excellent. I was hoping someone with more knowledge than me about the particulars of the U.S. judicial system would find that there is such as system in place (or close to). I hope these things exist in all juristictions.
Or a subtle tongue-in-cheek sense or humour.
I think the point was the use of lawsuits for what is effectively extortion and partly bullying. The legal process should have a mechanism such that a case can be reviewed for frivolousness before it costs the defendant a cent. There should also be an automatic fine or other penalties for cases deemed frivolous under such a system as a means of discouraging people (especially lawyers) from submitting them unless they're pretty sure they have a good case.
The problem is that just to get to the point that you can ask for the lawsuit to be dismissed will probably cost you thousands of dollars. Just to sit down with a lawyer to look over the suit in the first case might cost you a few hundred. Even a few thousand dollars can break the bank for some people.
There should be a system (perhaps there is, and someone can point me to it) whereby an individual can ask for a case to be reviewed before even talking to a lawyer. This is just taking schoolyard bullying to a higher level -- if you fight back it will only get worse for you even if you eventually win by getting the bully in trouble.