The unstated, and invalid, assumption on that site is that a flat percentage tax is somehow "fair." It is not. That one person at the high end, who pays $25,000 in taxes, does not receive significantly more government services than a person on the low end, who pays $500 in taxes. That's extremely unfair. The person on the high end is bearing 50x the burden.
Admit it, you're not concerned with "fairness," but are a socialist who wants income redistribution ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx)
and Vonage supports G.711 and, I think recently, T.38 Fax relay. Vonage allows the user to change the codec setting (I think they call it "Bandwidth Saver," and allow you to force G.711 by dialing *99 before the E.164 number).
T.38 will work in the presence of network issues (latency, jitter, packet loss) which will cause a G.711 fax call to croak. G.729 and G.721 codecs will very likely prevent any fax transmission - they use perceptual coding based on human speech to do compression. That does not work well for fax modulation (or music, or anything but human speech).
So yes, I believe that some Vonage users (who use G.711 PCM) can have fax "typically work fine," until it doesn't, because there's network conjestion somewhere along the path on the Internet, or someone on a different computer in the home starts browsing youtube, or any of a number of other reasons.
But, you get what you pay for, and Vonage is cheap.
The only time an officer should be able to violate traffic law with impunity is when it is required for performance of their public duty. (i.e. a pursuit, or when responding to an emergency situation)
"I only have to go to 1 web site to update my PC's - Windows Update - and it's incredibly simple - just click on Update and voila, it's done and everything works."
Well, if you take that simple route, you'll also end up with malware like WGA on your machine. Going the manual route is a bit more work, but still pretty easy.
On Linux, OTOH, one might be forced to actually take their hands off the mouse in order to type something like:
If they want to sell a sevice as "unlimited," then they should offer something which is, in fact, unlimited in some way.
The bandwidth is already limited to what the technology supports, so unlimited time usage is reasonable. Creating a limit to the amount of data has the effect of also creating a time limit, which makes them deceptive liars.
It's nothing but "skills based routing," applied to a broader range of problems. It's like trying to patent the wheel, because you used 5 of them when building your pentacycle.
"Amazingly, this is how car warranties do work... unauthorized modifications don't void the entire warranty, they just void the coverage on damage that can be linked to your modification."
That's simply not true, legally. Most manufacturers will cover such damage, either because they realize it's unreasonable not to, and/or they don't specifically disallow such activity in the warranty terms.
You're statement is obviously a vague reference to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which says in essence that warranties must be clearly written, and also provides this provision:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if -
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor...
Many aftermarket autoparts sellers point to that to make claims which simply aren't true. The above lets you use, say, BrandX oil filters if the auto manufacturer requires oil filter changes (regular maintenance) as a condition of the warranty, but doesn't give them to you free. There is absolutely nothing which legally prevents a warrantor from saying "Your engine warranty is void if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror." Read your car warranty, it may or may not allow unauthorized modifications. If it doesn't, then it's your choice whether making modifications is worth the loss of warranty coverage.
on when life begins. It begins at birth, by extremely well established common law. You get to vote when you are 18 years old, that is, 18 years after your birthday, you get to legally drink alcohol 21 years after your birthday, etc. Even among the "right-to-lifers," I've never met one who celebrated "conception day."
Nothing in the AHRA says you have to record in Red Book format on an audio-CD-R. Bittorrent all the MP3s you want, but set the download (or upload) directory to an audio-CDR, using packet writing. That way, it is "the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or
medium for making digital musical recordings," and not subject to copyright infringement action.
I said: "Now, because Congress saw a need to specifically state that last part ("embodies a sound recording at the time it is first distributed"), it is clear that, even after copyright material has been copied onto it, an Audio CD-R falls under that definition, or there would be no need for that provision (and it meets the rest of the definition).
and you said:"
As for this, I'm really sure I disagree. It's certainly an interesting reading, but it doesn't pass the laugh test, IMO. Congress' intent was to only permit blank media to be distributed, and I think that a court would interpret the statute in that manner."
Reread the definition:
(4)(A) A "digital audio recording medium" is any material
object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
(B) Such term does not include any material object -
(i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first
distributed by the importer or manufacturer; or
(ii) that is primarily marketed and most commonly used by
consumers either for the purpose of making copies of motion
pictures or other audiovisual works or for the purpose of
making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer
programs or data bases.
If the above definition does not include blank media which has later been recorded with content as allowed by the act, it would also have the obvious effect of removing protection for the re-recording of either audio-DAT or audio-CD-RW after an initial use was made (if not using a "digital audio recording device", i.e. you could only record once on such media using a computer). It's ludicrous to conclude that was the intent.
(ii) excludes regular (data) CD-Rs, and similar. What does (i) exclude, and why? The only item I can think of would be a pre-recorded DAT. But it's not reasonable to think that was Congress' intent - a consumer can/could buy a blank audio-DAT for less money, so there's no incentive for them to record over pre-recorded ones, and no reason for Congress to address that as an issue. That's a very reasonable assumption when it's generalized, too - that blank recording media will always be cheaper than equivalent pre-recorded media. Manufactured CDs can't be re-recorded, so they don't fit the base definition, and don't need exclusion. So, why did Congress make those exclusions, written the way they are? I believe they were made so that the excluded items were not subject to royalty payments, which is to say, you get the benefit of the "non-actionable" clause IFF a royalty has been paid. That's certainly passes the "laugh test;" pay the royalty fee, make a copy which you're able to distribute noncommercially.
Is there any reason to think that's beyond what was intended? Do you think Congress intended that people only be able to make copies for themselves, and pay royalties for the privilege? Did the RIAA fight for this act because people were making copies for themselves of material they already legally had a right to? Was that a big problem? That people were buying devices and media exclusively for that purpose? The act was created because the technology was being used to make copies from/for others.
Furthermore, it is clear that Congress knew of, and wanted to distinguish in the definition between blank media and media which had sound recordings. If Congress's intent were only to protect distribution of blank CD-Rs from contributory infringement action, as you appear to be claiming, why would they exclude only pre-recorded media from the definition? Distribution of pre-recorded media is well covered elsewhere, and is of no particular concern to this act. They would simply say "(B) Such term does not include any material object - (i) that embodies a sound recording" (i.e. a non-b
Bob has a legally purchased CD. Alice loans (she maintains title) a blank audio CD-R to Bob. There is no copyright material present on a blank CD, and this is not a 109 violation. Bob makes use of the AHRA provisions to make a copy of his CD onto Alice's blank CD-R, which he then returns. There has been no distribution, loaning, or sale of copyrighted material. Only copying in accordance with the AHRA.
Now, the same thing, except instead of Alice loaning a blank, Bob first gives her a blank from his stash. Again, no distribution, loaning or sale of copyrighted material, only copying under the terms of the AHRA.
Now, same thing, but Bob starts with an authorizedly-made CD. Makes no difference - the AHRA does not distinguish where the source material comes from.
But, all of that isn't necessary. A re-reading of the AHRA shows:
(4)(A) A "digital audio recording medium" is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
(B) Such term does not include any material object -
(i) that embodies a sound recording at the time it is first
distributed by the importer or manufacturer;
Now, because Congress saw a need to specifically state that last part ("embodies a sound recording at the time it is first
distributed"), it is clear that, even after copyright material has been copied onto it, an Audio CD-R falls under that definition, or there would be no need for that provision (and it meets the rest of the definition). That determined, the AHRA specifically allows "first sale" type of distribution: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the... distribution
of... a digital audio recording medium..."
So, make CDs under the AHRA, and give 'em away!
Your original post said "That would infringe the distribution right due to an extremely careful bit of rewording of the bill that RIAA got through without anyone really thinking about the effect. You see, the big exception to the distribution right is the first sale exception, which applies to any copy lawfully made under the Copyright Act. But AHRA compliant copies are not lawfully made, technically, they're just not actionably made. "
I don't think you were considering the specific "distribution is non-actionable" exemption of the AHRA.
It would be risky to try to do get around the limits in 109 without losing too much control. (e.g. giving your friend the copy and then having them never give it back, which would be fair of them if you had really given it in the first place and had no further interest in it)
I don't follow.
The intent is for the friend to have a copy (I don't want it back, I have an original). The process is to give the blank Audio CDR (part of "all media," in this context) to the friend, and then copy onto it as allowed by the AHRA. It is then theirs. This is not substantially different than them providing the blank media, onto which I copy.
The copy they then have is not subject to the first sale doctrine, so they could not sell or give it away (not even back to me). They could, however, repeat the same copying process under the AHRA.
If you give the media (transfer title, which is different than physical possession) to your friend first, then copy onto it, you are not "distributing" the material. And, as you say, no action can be brought for the actual copying.
Of course, ethically there is no problem, since royalties are paid on every piece of blank media. There's further legal argument to be found there.
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be: any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and ethically - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, MAFIAA!)
Is the RIAA now obligated to turn over this information (and presumably make it part of the public record), or do they have the option to refuse disclosure and simply pay the opposing legal bills without contesting the amount any further?
this isn't "chump change," it's gross inefficiency.
The summary, which claimed "our government is seriously going to spend this much money on upgrading peoples' televisions." shows a serious lack of understanding. "The government" is us.
In simple terms, this just means that we, as taxpayers, will be giving ourselves $80 in coupons, and funding bureaucrats along the way. For the $80 we get, we'll probably spend that and an extra $40 to support those bureaucrats, given the inefficiencies of the federal government. Furthermore, this will likely be taken as a signal to RCA and LG that they can hold prices higher for a while, because it amounts to a mandated time payment plan (buy now, pay at taxtime), and hides the true cost. The net effect is that the taxpayer will be inefficiently funding bureaucrats and private industry.
Absolute best case, if you're a liberal, is that this is a minor means of income redistribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Red/orange LEDs typically have a lifetime measured in the 10,000+ hour range, when reasonably driven. A $1 blue LED will provide a reliable 600+ THz.
You're not socialist, you're communist.
like, $5000 per person. That's only "regressive" in socialist-speak.
just how unfair taxes are.
The unstated, and invalid, assumption on that site is that a flat percentage tax is somehow "fair." It is not. That one person at the high end, who pays $25,000 in taxes, does not receive significantly more government services than a person on the low end, who pays $500 in taxes. That's extremely unfair. The person on the high end is bearing 50x the burden.
Admit it, you're not concerned with "fairness," but are a socialist who wants income redistribution ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx)
and Vonage supports G.711 and, I think recently, T.38 Fax relay. Vonage allows the user to change the codec setting (I think they call it "Bandwidth Saver," and allow you to force G.711 by dialing *99 before the E.164 number).
T.38 will work in the presence of network issues (latency, jitter, packet loss) which will cause a G.711 fax call to croak. G.729 and G.721 codecs will very likely prevent any fax transmission - they use perceptual coding based on human speech to do compression. That does not work well for fax modulation (or music, or anything but human speech).
So yes, I believe that some Vonage users (who use G.711 PCM) can have fax "typically work fine," until it doesn't, because there's network conjestion somewhere along the path on the Internet, or someone on a different computer in the home starts browsing youtube, or any of a number of other reasons.
But, you get what you pay for, and Vonage is cheap.
other than G.711 (uncompressed PCM), voice codecs will not handle fax or modem calls. The standard method of handling fax calls over IP is T.38.
allow me to do exactly the same thing.
The only time an officer should be able to violate traffic law with impunity is when it is required for performance of their public duty. (i.e. a pursuit, or when responding to an emergency situation)
"I only have to go to 1 web site to update my PC's - Windows Update - and it's incredibly simple - just click on Update and voila, it's done and everything works."
Well, if you take that simple route, you'll also end up with malware like WGA on your machine. Going the manual route is a bit more work, but still pretty easy.
On Linux, OTOH, one might be forced to actually take their hands off the mouse in order to type something like:
aptitude update
aptitude upgrade
Oh, the horror!
Some people think it's party time, anyway.
If they want to sell a sevice as "unlimited," then they should offer something which is, in fact, unlimited in some way.
The bandwidth is already limited to what the technology supports, so unlimited time usage is reasonable. Creating a limit to the amount of data has the effect of also creating a time limit, which makes them deceptive liars.
at least based on the description.
It's nothing but "skills based routing," applied to a broader range of problems. It's like trying to patent the wheel, because you used 5 of them when building your pentacycle.
That's simply not true, legally. Most manufacturers will cover such damage, either because they realize it's unreasonable not to, and/or they don't specifically disallow such activity in the warranty terms.
You're statement is obviously a vague reference to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which says in essence that warranties must be clearly written, and also provides this provision:
Many aftermarket autoparts sellers point to that to make claims which simply aren't true. The above lets you use, say, BrandX oil filters if the auto manufacturer requires oil filter changes (regular maintenance) as a condition of the warranty, but doesn't give them to you free. There is absolutely nothing which legally prevents a warrantor from saying "Your engine warranty is void if you hang fuzzy dice from the mirror." Read your car warranty, it may or may not allow unauthorized modifications. If it doesn't, then it's your choice whether making modifications is worth the loss of warranty coverage.
on when life begins. It begins at birth, by extremely well established common law. You get to vote when you are 18 years old, that is, 18 years after your birthday, you get to legally drink alcohol 21 years after your birthday, etc. Even among the "right-to-lifers," I've never met one who celebrated "conception day."
that free info was wrong.
The first Polymorphic computer was introduced in 1976.
Nothing in the AHRA says you have to record in Red Book format on an audio-CD-R. Bittorrent all the MP3s you want, but set the download (or upload) directory to an audio-CDR, using packet writing. That way, it is "the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings," and not subject to copyright infringement action.
and you said:" As for this, I'm really sure I disagree. It's certainly an interesting reading, but it doesn't pass the laugh test, IMO. Congress' intent was to only permit blank media to be distributed, and I think that a court would interpret the statute in that manner."
Reread the definition:
If the above definition does not include blank media which has later been recorded with content as allowed by the act, it would also have the obvious effect of removing protection for the re-recording of either audio-DAT or audio-CD-RW after an initial use was made (if not using a "digital audio recording device", i.e. you could only record once on such media using a computer). It's ludicrous to conclude that was the intent.
(ii) excludes regular (data) CD-Rs, and similar. What does (i) exclude, and why? The only item I can think of would be a pre-recorded DAT. But it's not reasonable to think that was Congress' intent - a consumer can/could buy a blank audio-DAT for less money, so there's no incentive for them to record over pre-recorded ones, and no reason for Congress to address that as an issue. That's a very reasonable assumption when it's generalized, too - that blank recording media will always be cheaper than equivalent pre-recorded media. Manufactured CDs can't be re-recorded, so they don't fit the base definition, and don't need exclusion. So, why did Congress make those exclusions, written the way they are? I believe they were made so that the excluded items were not subject to royalty payments, which is to say, you get the benefit of the "non-actionable" clause IFF a royalty has been paid. That's certainly passes the "laugh test;" pay the royalty fee, make a copy which you're able to distribute noncommercially.
Is there any reason to think that's beyond what was intended? Do you think Congress intended that people only be able to make copies for themselves, and pay royalties for the privilege? Did the RIAA fight for this act because people were making copies for themselves of material they already legally had a right to? Was that a big problem? That people were buying devices and media exclusively for that purpose? The act was created because the technology was being used to make copies from/for others.
Furthermore, it is clear that Congress knew of, and wanted to distinguish in the definition between blank media and media which had sound recordings. If Congress's intent were only to protect distribution of blank CD-Rs from contributory infringement action, as you appear to be claiming, why would they exclude only pre-recorded media from the definition? Distribution of pre-recorded media is well covered elsewhere, and is of no particular concern to this act. They would simply say "(B) Such term does not include any material object - (i) that embodies a sound recording" (i.e. a non-b
Now, the same thing, except instead of Alice loaning a blank, Bob first gives her a blank from his stash. Again, no distribution, loaning or sale of copyrighted material, only copying under the terms of the AHRA.
Now, same thing, but Bob starts with an authorizedly-made CD. Makes no difference - the AHRA does not distinguish where the source material comes from.
But, all of that isn't necessary. A re-reading of the AHRA shows:
Now, because Congress saw a need to specifically state that last part ("embodies a sound recording at the time it is first distributed"), it is clear that, even after copyright material has been copied onto it, an Audio CD-R falls under that definition, or there would be no need for that provision (and it meets the rest of the definition). That determined, the AHRA specifically allows "first sale" type of distribution: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the
So, make CDs under the AHRA, and give 'em away!
Your original post said "That would infringe the distribution right due to an extremely careful bit of rewording of the bill that RIAA got through without anyone really thinking about the effect. You see, the big exception to the distribution right is the first sale exception, which applies to any copy lawfully made under the Copyright Act. But AHRA compliant copies are not lawfully made, technically, they're just not actionably made. "
I don't think you were considering the specific "distribution is non-actionable" exemption of the AHRA.
Do you still disagree?
It would be risky to try to do get around the limits in 109 without losing too much control. (e.g. giving your friend the copy and then having them never give it back, which would be fair of them if you had really given it in the first place and had no further interest in it)
I don't follow.
The intent is for the friend to have a copy (I don't want it back, I have an original). The process is to give the blank Audio CDR (part of "all media," in this context) to the friend, and then copy onto it as allowed by the AHRA. It is then theirs. This is not substantially different than them providing the blank media, onto which I copy.
The copy they then have is not subject to the first sale doctrine, so they could not sell or give it away (not even back to me). They could, however, repeat the same copying process under the AHRA.
If you give the media (transfer title, which is different than physical possession) to your friend first, then copy onto it, you are not "distributing" the material. And, as you say, no action can be brought for the actual copying.
Of course, ethically there is no problem, since royalties are paid on every piece of blank media. There's further legal argument to be found there.
where have you been?
Copy all the CDs you want, legally!
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and ethically - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, MAFIAA!)
write a randomizer (using wget?) to pollute their data?
from the transcript of the hearing:
"THE COURT: Where does this illustration come from in 46? This cup with all this money?
MR. MARRIOTT: Someone on our team made that up, Your Honor."
Is the RIAA now obligated to turn over this information (and presumably make it part of the public record), or do they have the option to refuse disclosure and simply pay the opposing legal bills without contesting the amount any further?
this isn't "chump change," it's gross inefficiency.
The summary, which claimed "our government is seriously going to spend this much money on upgrading peoples' televisions." shows a serious lack of understanding. "The government" is us.
In simple terms, this just means that we, as taxpayers, will be giving ourselves $80 in coupons, and funding bureaucrats along the way. For the $80 we get, we'll probably spend that and an extra $40 to support those bureaucrats, given the inefficiencies of the federal government. Furthermore, this will likely be taken as a signal to RCA and LG that they can hold prices higher for a while, because it amounts to a mandated time payment plan (buy now, pay at taxtime), and hides the true cost. The net effect is that the taxpayer will be inefficiently funding bureaucrats and private industry.
Absolute best case, if you're a liberal, is that this is a minor means of income redistribution.