I'm starting to believe that Hollywood really doesn't want to make money. After all, why else do they not want to put their films on the UK version of Netflix, when they're available on the US version? In the hope that we'll buy them on DVD instead? Good luck with that one.
Oh, Hollywood wants to make money, of course. They just don't want you to know how they do it.
If your corporation has two wholy owned subsidary corporations that do business only with each other, you can 'lose' LOTS of money in the paperwork. For instance, 'Babylon 5' reputedly has yet to show a 'profit' even after syndication deals, dvd sales, etc. Seems the contract with JMS was vague enough that if the studio has a fire on a production somewhere out in the Congo, the losses are written off from Babylon 5's profits. They call this 'Hollywood accounting', and they use it to avoid taxes as well as screwing the talent. No profit? No taxes.
After rooting my computer there's no way I'll ever be their customer again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The first time he hits you you're a victim, the second time you're an accomplice.
Sony would argue there's no reason to put a CD/DVD of their content in your computer's tray unless you intended to pirate their content.
6.4 billion in losses? Damn, them pirates are getting good at that shit...
Consider what happens if it's the other way around, what if the company violates their responsibilities under the TOS? Is that automatically a crime? No. In some cases, if you can show they were willfully misleading, to a large group of customers, then it might be treated as criminal fraud. But the company violating the TOS is not automatically a crime, it's a civil breach of contract.
I'd have an attorney read over the TOS before suing, though. I've read some that have a clause saying that by using the service I accept the TOS and agree to hold the provider blameless in anything that may come up, up to and including the Second Coming of Elvis.
If you want to ban fraud, then write a law banning fraud (which already exist, naturally), not criminalize random things just because "with a computer" is tacked on.
But it's ok to 'create' and 'patent' something already out there by adding 'on a computer hooked to the internet or not'?
Actually, I worked in that 'industry' for 15 years. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Insurance companies only have to pay on claims that have been 'filed in a timely manner', the filing deadline is specified in the policy. Improperly filed claims are considered to be 'no claim' until they have been 'properly refiled', and if the filing deadline is passed before this happens, no payment is made on that claim. It's in the policy, which is considered to be a contract under the law.
Primary infringement: Joe Schmuck buys a DVD and procedes to rip it down to his computer. It's a 'violation' of the DCMA because the video is 'encrypted' and needs something like libdvd2 to decrypt the 'key'. And there's the standard 'FBI Warning' notice on the DVD when you play it. Thus, *AA argues the content is 'licensed' not sold.
Secondary infringement: The company who sold Joe Schmuck his hard drive. Without that hard drive, Joe Schmuck wouldn't have anything to store his 'infringing' copy upon. Thus, argues the *AA, said company 'facilitated' the 'infringement'. Doesn't matter that they do not have physical access to the drive anymore, they 'facilitated'.
Tertiary infringement: The company who manufactured the hard drive. By manufacturing the hard drive, they have created a 'criminal tool', defined as any non-living object essential to and used in 'the commission of a crime'. By wholesaling the hard drive to the company who sold it to Joe Schmuck, they are now the 'tertiary infringers', even though they lost physical control of the drive.
We can take this tree of 'infringement' back at least 2 or 3 more generations, to the people who mined and refined the materials to build the hard drive, as well as the designers. How much stupidity are we looking for here?
Why anybody would wanna steal Medicaid ids is beyond me. To qualify for Medicaid you have to be poor.
Because most of those people are old, living on fixed incomes, and are perfect targets for running a wide variety of scams. Just because their income is low does not mean they don't have other financial resources, for example savings accounts and many own their own homes. Many of them are also drawing social security, and with access to all their information payments could potentially be diverted, etc.
You're thinking Medicare not Medicaid Medicare is the old people's medical insurance you pay on your entire working career, and now that it went private, they take 'your' premiums directly out of your Social Security check to give to your 'Medicare provider' along with the money the government gives them. By looting your Social Security check, the government doesn't need to kick in as much.
Medicaid is the medical insurance provided by the various states for people on Welfare and such. Two totally different things.
Actually, insurance companies want the uploads to fail. If they don't fail, then they actually have to pay money on a claim. They'd rather not do that, it goes against the bottom line.
Why anybody would wanna steal Medicaid ids is beyond me. To qualify for Medicaid you have to be poor. No way you'll be able to identity theft up a Gold Card with that info. If they weren't so broke they couldn't pay attention, they couldn't get Medicaid.
And there's another thing to consider when you think of all that wireless density. Suppose the wireless users get together and form their own encrypted mesh that isn't so dependent on the local ISP. Neighbourhoods, small towns or even city cores in larger cities could be linked without having a single ISP to oversee and filter their traffic.
Sooner or later you're gonna have to link back into the backbone.
Not to worry, the chick can turn around, sell 'her' copyright to a studio here in the States, then that studio will take the guy to court and bankrupt his great great grandkids.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, Hollywood wants to make money, of course. They just don't want you to know how they do it.
If your corporation has two wholy owned subsidary corporations that do business only with each other, you can 'lose' LOTS of money in the paperwork. For instance, 'Babylon 5' reputedly has yet to show a 'profit' even after syndication deals, dvd sales, etc. Seems the contract with JMS was vague enough that if the studio has a fire on a production somewhere out in the Congo, the losses are written off from Babylon 5's profits. They call this 'Hollywood accounting', and they use it to avoid taxes as well as screwing the talent. No profit? No taxes.
I'm wondering if they've 'discovered' oil in Hamburg, al-Qaeda cells in Dusseldorf, and WMDs in Berlin. Could there be an invasion pending?
They're just acting like every government I've ever heard of.
Sony would argue there's no reason to put a CD/DVD of their content in your computer's tray unless you intended to pirate their content.
6.4 billion in losses? Damn, them pirates are getting good at that shit...
I'd have an attorney read over the TOS before suing, though. I've read some that have a clause saying that by using the service I accept the TOS and agree to hold the provider blameless in anything that may come up, up to and including the Second Coming of Elvis.
But it's ok to 'create' and 'patent' something already out there by adding 'on a computer hooked to the internet or not'?
"Hey, we didn't get a 'harumph' outta that guy!"
"Harumph!! Harumph!!"
"You better watch your ass!!"
JPod Episode 5, 'Crappy Birthday To You', IIRC...
Only if you have enough money to bribe^Fcontribute to your pet politicians' camaigns.
Actually, I worked in that 'industry' for 15 years. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Insurance companies only have to pay on claims that have been 'filed in a timely manner', the filing deadline is specified in the policy. Improperly filed claims are considered to be 'no claim' until they have been 'properly refiled', and if the filing deadline is passed before this happens, no payment is made on that claim. It's in the policy, which is considered to be a contract under the law.
Except that *AA considers 'fair use' to be only 'fair use' of your wallet. Anything that doesn't put money in their pockets is 'infringement'.
Silly wabbit, corporations are more of a person than humans are. The law says so.
Primary infringement: Joe Schmuck buys a DVD and procedes to rip it down to his computer. It's a 'violation' of the DCMA because the video is 'encrypted' and needs something like libdvd2 to decrypt the 'key'. And there's the standard 'FBI Warning' notice on the DVD when you play it. Thus, *AA argues the content is 'licensed' not sold.
Secondary infringement: The company who sold Joe Schmuck his hard drive. Without that hard drive, Joe Schmuck wouldn't have anything to store his 'infringing' copy upon. Thus, argues the *AA, said company 'facilitated' the 'infringement'. Doesn't matter that they do not have physical access to the drive anymore, they 'facilitated'.
Tertiary infringement: The company who manufactured the hard drive. By manufacturing the hard drive, they have created a 'criminal tool', defined as any non-living object essential to and used in 'the commission of a crime'. By wholesaling the hard drive to the company who sold it to Joe Schmuck, they are now the 'tertiary infringers', even though they lost physical control of the drive.
We can take this tree of 'infringement' back at least 2 or 3 more generations, to the people who mined and refined the materials to build the hard drive, as well as the designers. How much stupidity are we looking for here?
You're thinking Medicare not Medicaid Medicare is the old people's medical insurance you pay on your entire working career, and now that it went private, they take 'your' premiums directly out of your Social Security check to give to your 'Medicare provider' along with the money the government gives them. By looting your Social Security check, the government doesn't need to kick in as much.
Medicaid is the medical insurance provided by the various states for people on Welfare and such. Two totally different things.
Yes, the hackers will be held responsible. But will they be caught? Track record says 'no'. Unless they do something seriously stupid.
Actually, insurance companies want the uploads to fail. If they don't fail, then they actually have to pay money on a claim. They'd rather not do that, it goes against the bottom line.
Why anybody would wanna steal Medicaid ids is beyond me. To qualify for Medicaid you have to be poor. No way you'll be able to identity theft up a Gold Card with that info. If they weren't so broke they couldn't pay attention, they couldn't get Medicaid.
Sooner or later you're gonna have to link back into the backbone.
Fire up that bittorrent, scam that pr0n from the net, kiddiezz, them thar routers are OPEN!!!
Dude, we're talking about the US here. You know, the country that says 'All your IP is belong to us'?
Except that the judgement was in Australia, and she can still press 'her' copyright claims here in the US.
Except that *AA defines any infringement is criminal infringement.
Dude, it's one of the few high points of SyFy these days. 'Alphas', their low budget 'Heroes' clone, just doesn't do it for me.
Not to worry, the chick can turn around, sell 'her' copyright to a studio here in the States, then that studio will take the guy to court and bankrupt his great great grandkids.
Great. Give them more ideas...
... und ve now haff zhe source of zhe 'alien hand sysndrom'. Mein Leader, ve MUST ATTACK!!