Yeah well I'm willing to bet the New Jersey government has more money to blow than some stupid election company
Also, considering this is New Jersey:
"Hey, Sequoia, we's gots some guys from Hoboken wants to talk to youse guys." (Actually, Hoboken has gotten a lot nicer since the old days. Jersey City, not so much.)
Your statement presumes that a government can not commit a criminal act. We threw out that theory at the Nuremburg trials.
True, but there is this whole "conquer them and put their leaders on trial" bit that can be somewhat tiresome and a tad dangerous for everyday foot soldiers.
I see. So in this case you are agitating to break the law because you disagree with it. In this story, the government of Sweden is acting to uphold the law, and we were discussing the legal rights of copyright holders. The "morality" of the law is obviously open to interpretation as you'll find people on both sides of the issue. But the actual existence - and concrete language - of the law should not be in doubt.
What's your point? My point is that, due to the excessive length of copyright, it is now an unjust law. That sort of law is deserving of nothing but contempt.
See, if you actually could follow your OWN LINKS to their parents, and look up the original lawsuit you would find that the RIAA is not named as a defendant. It's not the RIAA.
There are other articles dealing with this. While "RIAA" is not listed in the lawsuit you linked to, the biggest and not-quite-so-big members of the RIAA are specifically listed on the lawsuit. Saying it is the RIAA is simply common shorthand. Or, to put it another way, if the members of a group are parties to a lawsuit, saying that they and not the group are being sued is a distinction without a difference.
Many artists are copyright holders. Many artists sell their copyrights for cash, to other companies who manage the copyrights. Others turn their copyrights over to the public domain. Talking of the copyright holder is the correct statement as it encompasses all these people - whoever holds the copyright has the legal right to pursue violations of the copyright. Artist, label, museum, collector.
True, but artists who sign up with an RIAA member label are not and generally get pittances if anything. Again, the questions are (1) how long should copyright last? and (2) how should one be allowed to persue infringers?
So your problem - as you believe - is that the term is too long, and that the copyright holder can legally sue you for violating their copyright. Yet you think that copyrights are OK. And if anyone disagrees with your position regarding these two, they are a simpleton. That's what I read, and that is what you wrote.
The fact is that copyrights exist, the government - for better or worse - has decided that they will exist for a set and defined amount of time, and that you can sue for losses or damages relating to violations of the copyright. You agree this is the current state, that this is the law, yet because you do not agree with the law you support violating the rights of other individuals who seek protection of the law.
Rather than take your frustration with the law out against the government, you choose to attack your fellow citizen who actually operates lawfully. And that is your definition of moral?
No, the problem is not just the length of copyrights, but the means which the RIAA (and again, presumably their Swedish version will as well) have used to go after infringers. Also, you seemed to have missed the whole part about the RIAA bribing^W contributing to the campaigns of so many congresscritters to get the laws changed to their benefit. 28 years of copyright was working fine in a world with slow communications. If anything, with the ability today to get the word out about something and promote your work, copyrights should be even shorter than 28 years since there is considerably less lead time to get a work exposed to the public.
Sometimes my feet do smell. Of course, my mother passed away 9 years ago from lymphoma, and spent the last 6 months of her life as an invalid here at my house as I worked from home to take care of her, and watched her die in her bedroom. I'd ask you drop the cutesy act trying to be funny...
Actually, my initial comment was the setup for a joke. The fact that you responded so angrily is the punchline.
Sir, your calm demeanor and carefully set forth logic are a wonder to behold. Let's go through this one at a time, shall we?
I see. I am a simpleton. Because I understand the law AS WRITTEN, and believe that the owners of property should have the right to use, sell or license their property as they see fit?
I understand the law as written as well. You are a simpleton because you do not ask the rather obvious questions "Why is the law written this way?" and "Is this law right and just?"
When was the RIAA convicted of "price fixing"? I know that 5 labels were found guilty of colluding with three store chains to set a MAP, but that's not the RIAA.
Here. That took all of two seconds on an internet search. You could simply have searched for the terms "RIAA price fixing" and you would have received numerous hits, but I guess you were too busy having your apoplectic fit.
You don't think copyright should be as long as it is; others think otherwise. In your oh-so-enlightened mind, that makes you God almighty correct and the rest of us simply simpletons who go along with the sheep. And if we don't agree with you we MUST be shills or trolls! Heaven forbid anyone disagree with such a towering intellect as yourself!
If you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I called you a shill or a troll because of the terminology you were using. You were talking about rights holders rather than artists. Also, the "others [who] think otherwise" are generally members of groups like the RIAA and others who stand to profit from eternal copyright. Copyright is a fiction, albeit a useful one if done properly. The purpose of copyright is to give a person legal rights for a limited time in exchange for the product of their creativity becoming publicly available after the time has passed. Or, to put it another way, instead of having artistic and inventive works be kept secret, the government grants legal rights so as to foster the developments of the creative arts. Again, the reason I called you a simpleton is because, while you may understand the law as written, you do not seem to begin to grasp *why* the law is there in the first place.
So, other than your PERSONAL feelings that copyright should be considerably shortened, what exactly is wrong with Sweden enforcing IP rights? What is wrong with the owners of the copyright enforcing their LEGAL rights?
Again, if you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I did not say that there is something inherently wrong with copyright itself. The problems are (at least with the RIAA and possibly will be with its Swedish counterpart) (1) how long should those rights last? and (2) how should one be allowed to prosecute infringers? If I think you stole something of mine, I am well within my rights to persue legal action against you. I am not within my rights to hack your computer to try to find emails of you bragging about it, nor am I within my rights to kick in your door, hold you at gunpoint, and search your house for it. Do you even begin to see the problem here?
And, by the way, your feet stink and your mother dresses you funny.
He should be sentenced to be taken to Pike Place Market and slapped in the face with a salmon for each email sent while being forced to drink cheap coffee. Of course, that would probably a horrible waste of salmon.
Why do you get the right to decide what someone else should charge for their works? Do I get to decide how much you can charge for your labor?
Don't buy it if you don't like the price. But you have ZERO RIGHT to tell the owners of the copyright how much to charge for the use of the copyrighted work.
It's so easy to debate simple-minded simpletons. The prices are as they are due to the fact that RIAA essentially forms a monopoly. They have even been found guilty of price-fixing. I should have the right to at least help establish what the price of their work is by being able to purchase similar items elsewhere. You can't do this with the present establishment. I also noticed that you use "owners of the copyright" rather than "artists" so you are likely an industry shill or a brainwashed troll.
There also lots of other issues to consider (and you apparently are not mentally adept enough to realize they even exist). Why is US copyright life+90 years? More people would respect copyright if the terms were reasonable. As it is, by the time something that comes out today becomes public domain, my grandchildren will be looking for a nursing home (and this is assuming the cartels don't go after even *more* extensions). Star Wars is 31 years old. It should be in the public domain now. George Lucas got his protection and got a chance to make a ton of money off of it. We should now have it in the public domain, which was the original give-and-take idea of copyright. Star Trek TOS is even older and it should be in the public domain. Hell, even "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" isn't in the frigging public domain and my *grandparents* are too young to have seen it when it came out!
Do you begin to see why people have no respect for copyright? If there were a reasonable time period for copyrights and the MAFIAA instead used legitimate means to catch infringers, I would be all for them and say screw the freeloaders. But, with what we have now, the MAFIAA can rot in the tenth circle of hell.
No, the filing date is too late. You have to compare filing dates, not publication dates (and then there is the whole mess about continuations and so on). Also, Google's "New Patent" is not a patent, but a published application for a patent. [mumbles something about slashbots not knowing the difference or understanding what a patent claim is]
Oh, sorry. It was just "But that was a Führer-order and Qwest is a traitor!" German's not my first language, either, so I may be laughed at by some of the Germans on/.
Right, then go after the President, not the ISPs or the telecoms. If the telecoms were "given hell" from the administration if they didn't cooperate, then they should gladly testify against the administration.
So, if Bush told you to pop a cap in someone's ass and you did it, you think they should only go after the President? What the telcoms did was highly illegal. Doing illegal things on orders from the President is still illegal. Hell, even soldiers aren't supposed to follow illegal orders and telcom companies are not exactly in the military chain of command. In short, you're a fucking moron and I hope you die.
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard", said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
The sad thing is that, if you look at how people in Congress, in the Corporate world, and in positions of power in general behave, they seem to ultimately be using just the reptilian portion of the brain. The cerebrum is simply the part of the brain that supports their primitive reptilian behaviour. Think about it. People like the Bushes or the Clintons or Cheney are perfectly content to see millions of people suffer and die so they and their friends can profit massively and so they can retain and accumulate power. They have no empathy for other human beings.
We are being ruled by people who may as well be lizards.
Aber daß war ein Führerbefehl und Qwest ist ein Verräter! Seriously, though, I think the Bush family is still pissed off that their side lost the Second World War. All this economic destruction of the American economy and destruction of basic civil liberties is simply a bit of revenge for which they have waited so patiently.
But I'd rather see a Congressman who can write sensible legislature.
Well, maybe he can start drafting all the legislation he proposes using IF-THEN-ELSE statements. If anyone complains, he can declare the House to be full of n00bs.
I see nothing but off-topic trolls and insipid banter about deadly sins taken out of context from the description at the top of the page. Not a single comment on the actual article.
I hate to say this since you have a lower UID than I do but, You must be new here.
The Electoral College is not a static group of Illuminati holding secret rites in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial
Of course not, it is in the Jefferson Memorial. The Electoral College branch of the Illuminati (fnord) all gather in a circle around the statue of Thomas Jefferson (fnord) and chant prayers to Baal (fnord).
I don't live in the US so please forgive me if there's actually some method to this madness, but frankly, it's still madness.
Ultimately, it is just a hold over from Monarchy. It's the same reason we have a single individual in charge of an entire branch of government. The U.S. needed to have someone represent the country to the crowned heads of the European powers, so we put a single man in charge of the Executive Branch and called him President. So, you are basically right. At this point, it is purely madness. IMNSHO, America needs to do away with this anacronism and have a more sensible way of structuring the Executive Branch.
After a shopper's membership card is scanned, and the goods are bagged and the customer is ready to go, the drone cashier will usually pipe (pretty much for ALL in earshot to hear), "Thank you, Mr/Mrs/Ms (last name)".
You, uh, don't give them your real name, do you? There is only one store I have a shopper's card for, and it is with a fake name. Although, once when my mother was visiting, I had to tell her ahead of time so she wouldn't look at me funny when the cashier said "Thank you, Mr. Burdell!"
Slashdot Mirror
"Hey, Sequoia, we's gots some guys from Hoboken wants to talk to youse guys." (Actually, Hoboken has gotten a lot nicer since the old days. Jersey City, not so much.)
I understand the law as written as well. You are a simpleton because you do not ask the rather obvious questions "Why is the law written this way?" and "Is this law right and just?"
Here. That took all of two seconds on an internet search. You could simply have searched for the terms "RIAA price fixing" and you would have received numerous hits, but I guess you were too busy having your apoplectic fit.
If you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I called you a shill or a troll because of the terminology you were using. You were talking about rights holders rather than artists. Also, the "others [who] think otherwise" are generally members of groups like the RIAA and others who stand to profit from eternal copyright. Copyright is a fiction, albeit a useful one if done properly. The purpose of copyright is to give a person legal rights for a limited time in exchange for the product of their creativity becoming publicly available after the time has passed. Or, to put it another way, instead of having artistic and inventive works be kept secret, the government grants legal rights so as to foster the developments of the creative arts. Again, the reason I called you a simpleton is because, while you may understand the law as written, you do not seem to begin to grasp *why* the law is there in the first place.
Again, if you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I did not say that there is something inherently wrong with copyright itself. The problems are (at least with the RIAA and possibly will be with its Swedish counterpart) (1) how long should those rights last? and (2) how should one be allowed to prosecute infringers? If I think you stole something of mine, I am well within my rights to persue legal action against you. I am not within my rights to hack your computer to try to find emails of you bragging about it, nor am I within my rights to kick in your door, hold you at gunpoint, and search your house for it. Do you even begin to see the problem here?And, by the way, your feet stink and your mother dresses you funny.
He should be sentenced to be taken to Pike Place Market and slapped in the face with a salmon for each email sent while being forced to drink cheap coffee. Of course, that would probably a horrible waste of salmon.
There also lots of other issues to consider (and you apparently are not mentally adept enough to realize they even exist). Why is US copyright life+90 years? More people would respect copyright if the terms were reasonable. As it is, by the time something that comes out today becomes public domain, my grandchildren will be looking for a nursing home (and this is assuming the cartels don't go after even *more* extensions). Star Wars is 31 years old. It should be in the public domain now. George Lucas got his protection and got a chance to make a ton of money off of it. We should now have it in the public domain, which was the original give-and-take idea of copyright. Star Trek TOS is even older and it should be in the public domain. Hell, even "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" isn't in the frigging public domain and my *grandparents* are too young to have seen it when it came out!
Do you begin to see why people have no respect for copyright? If there were a reasonable time period for copyrights and the MAFIAA instead used legitimate means to catch infringers, I would be all for them and say screw the freeloaders. But, with what we have now, the MAFIAA can rot in the tenth circle of hell.
DARPA the toilet paper!
DARPA the flamethrower! (the kids love this one)
Oh, sorry. It was just "But that was a Führer-order and Qwest is a traitor!" German's not my first language, either, so I may be laughed at by some of the Germans on /.
We are being ruled by people who may as well be lizards.
Now maybe he can hack into the C-Span system so that, when he gives a speech before the House, it shows him as "Bill Foster (D-1337)".
"No bastard ever won a cyber-war by getting hacked for his country. He won it by making the other dumb bastard get hacked for his country!"