Nope. Much like UUNET was spending more on building out the Internet in 1999 than anyone else, that was a sign of success. They were big and "growing" through investment. So MCI bought them and shut them down.
Growth is a sign of success. Negative cash flow is a sign of success (or failure). He's saying that in this case, it's success, not failure.
I've just said people are ethically bound to pay their debts,
While the corporations claim they are ethically bound to not pay their debts (tax avoidance), I'd argue that you are ethically bound to hold the corporations to the law, even if that impairs their profits.
I've lived it. I had a written agreement with a company discharging my debt, as they failed to deliver and wanted to avoid court. The company I had that discharge of debt with folded. I discarded my written agreement after 7 years. 10 years after the "debt" that never existed, I had a collections company contact me, demanding payment. It showed up on my credit report as a current debt in default.
That's not the exception to the rule. That is the rule. The company was sold. They then bulk-sold every debt ever, without care or diligence. It was illegal. It took me a long time to clear it up. That's SOP for corporations.
That you assume benevolence and fair play on the part of corporation is simply insane. Anyone dealing with them should treat them in the manner they treat others. By the letter of the law, exploiting the law as much as possible.
The borrower needs to track the loan so far as to protect their interests. The corporation is responsible for the same. If either party fails, then they "deserve" (under law) to lose their interests.
You're looking to escape responsibility for your actions and are part of the real problem.
Corporations avoid as much tax as possible. They don't follow the laws as intended, but as written. Anyone dealing with the corporations would be unethical to treat them otherwise.
The only ethical choice is to screw the corporation.
I understand your objection, and disagree with the premise. Google has no more ammunition over the RIAA than anyone else. Safe harbor doesn't grant safe harbor. Safe harbor is an affirmative defense, not an indemnity. Many have had safe harbor and lost. The filesharing sites that did takedowns under safe harbor were still sued into oblivion. If Google were to gain money from infringement, they have no safe harbor, even if they comply with 100% of the DMCA safe harbor provisions. I know that's not how the law reads, but that's how the cases about the law read.
If Google fell back on safe harbor, and made "billions" on copyright infringement, they'd be as liable as the P2P that complied and were still shut down.
I still don't see why YouTube should get a special legal loophole that grants them that sort of commercial advantage.
They don't. BMI/ASCAP licensing has been around much longer than you. Anyone can use it. Spotify and others negotiate more direct (and favorable) agreements. The RIAA is breaking their standard practice to try to extort from Google. Google calling the RIAA's bluff doesn't have me siding with the RIAA.
Do you similarly complain when Spotify and Apple negotiate more directly than the standard BMI/ASCAP licensing?
Did you also object when the RIAA literally hired mob hitmen to shut down the 100% legal operation, AllOfMP3?
Or are you just anti-Google, and the rest doesn't matter?
Surely it would be copyright infringement to redistribute those works without a licence from the rightsholders of some form, though,
Nope. The rightholder has licensed out the works to BMI/ASCAP in most cases, and YouTube could then get a license from those, without any involvement of the rightholders. That's commonly how it's done.
web sites are covered under BMI/ASAP licensing. These are RIAA organizations with blanket licensing agreements. The numbers were created for restaurants, not for something YouTube scale.
Oooh, something you've never heard of. Must be made up! You know everything. Except for common things, like licensing agreements through companies over 100 years old.
No, I'm not saying that's what YouTube is doing. I'm saying that's a common thing people do to pay minimal licensing to play works publicly. Simple, easy, and cheap. Works out about right for the numbers given, seems like YouTube could be over-paying, but then, they have to do something for those that upload songs that aren't under BMI or ASCAP.
Nope. With SSN (and name to match) with mother's maiden name, you can bypass or reset lots of passwords for banks, get new credit cards, and other things.
DOB and SSN would let you add/drop classes on the phone system at college. DOB + SSN (name not even needed), and you could waste thousands of dollars of someone's money. Or cause them to fail out of college, dropping the classes they are in, enroll them in ones they don't know about, for solid F's for the year.
I was, but it doesn't matter. I'm still accused of being partisan, every time I attack a bad action by anyone. I have managed to vote in every election since '92, and never for the winner. What else can I do?
But it's not copyright infrimgement. It's paying agreed charges when the charges weren't well thought out by RIAA when they were set before YouTube was conceived. There is no piracy/infringement happening, just a unilateral change to terms of a contract because the RIAA wants more money.
I used to post it on slashdot years ago. The racists never cared, so I haven't bothered to keep track of it. If I had a cite, and posted it, it wouldn't change your opinion anyway. But humans like to pretend they are rational, even with proof to the opposite.
A receipt from a house sale, along with the account number the cash was withdrawn from. "proof of fund" is "proof of legality of funds". So I could prove they weren't gained from a drug deal.
In the US, when someone robs a bank, the bank calls it "identity theft" and bills their customers. The rest of the world treats the bank robbery like the US treats a physical bank robbery, only the bank loses funds.
I carried $50k around for a week, and I kept proof of funds with me, in case I was stopped. As you say, I was more worried about the cops than the robbers.
LAst time I was in a power outage, they did pull out the old sliders. Most places still have them, though in many cases, buried in a box in the manager's office nobody knows about.
which of these people entering the shop is the most risky
In which case, the Black guy should never be the answer. Black people don't rob jewelry stores. They may be more likely to rob a non-white owned convenience store, but the reason Black on Black crime is so high is that everyone knows that they have a much much better chance of getting away with it, since the cops don't really care about the Black on Black crime.
Are you seriously claiming that a group comprising 6% of the population committing 50% of the murders is less violent because of some sort of mysterious systemic racism?
Yes. Because a Black person with no prior arrests is less likely to commit murder than a white person with no arrests.
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, arrests cause crime. That you can't understand the reason doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Go on, prove my statement (about the un-arrested) wrong if you don't believe it.
If you fix any one of them, it will help in all other areas. Saying "there's too many factors, we can't fix it all" and giving up won't help anything. But the latter seems to be the most common reaction.
The stats don't define "PC", so the stats are useless. They used to exclude laptops, then included them. Do they include embedded systems, or only "home PCs"?
From the quotes provided, they only include built systems by top-tier home PC makers. So it's hard to tell what's being measured.
But if the question is racist, the answer should be as well. "Which of the people entering my store is most likely a convicted felon?" Well, since we are so efficient at convicting the Black males, he should be singled out by the AI as a risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Then stop being big brother. Problem solved.
Nope. Much like UUNET was spending more on building out the Internet in 1999 than anyone else, that was a sign of success. They were big and "growing" through investment. So MCI bought them and shut them down.
Growth is a sign of success. Negative cash flow is a sign of success (or failure). He's saying that in this case, it's success, not failure.
I've just said people are ethically bound to pay their debts,
While the corporations claim they are ethically bound to not pay their debts (tax avoidance), I'd argue that you are ethically bound to hold the corporations to the law, even if that impairs their profits.
I've lived it. I had a written agreement with a company discharging my debt, as they failed to deliver and wanted to avoid court. The company I had that discharge of debt with folded. I discarded my written agreement after 7 years. 10 years after the "debt" that never existed, I had a collections company contact me, demanding payment. It showed up on my credit report as a current debt in default.
That's not the exception to the rule. That is the rule. The company was sold. They then bulk-sold every debt ever, without care or diligence. It was illegal. It took me a long time to clear it up. That's SOP for corporations.
That you assume benevolence and fair play on the part of corporation is simply insane. Anyone dealing with them should treat them in the manner they treat others. By the letter of the law, exploiting the law as much as possible.
You're looking to escape responsibility for your actions and are part of the real problem.
Corporations avoid as much tax as possible. They don't follow the laws as intended, but as written. Anyone dealing with the corporations would be unethical to treat them otherwise.
The only ethical choice is to screw the corporation.
You have an ethical responsibility to provide for corporate profit, even when they don't follow the laws that govern their industry?
They still like signatures. Those are still mostly on paper.
I understand your objection, and disagree with the premise. Google has no more ammunition over the RIAA than anyone else. Safe harbor doesn't grant safe harbor. Safe harbor is an affirmative defense, not an indemnity. Many have had safe harbor and lost. The filesharing sites that did takedowns under safe harbor were still sued into oblivion. If Google were to gain money from infringement, they have no safe harbor, even if they comply with 100% of the DMCA safe harbor provisions. I know that's not how the law reads, but that's how the cases about the law read.
If Google fell back on safe harbor, and made "billions" on copyright infringement, they'd be as liable as the P2P that complied and were still shut down.
I still don't see why YouTube should get a special legal loophole that grants them that sort of commercial advantage.
They don't. BMI/ASCAP licensing has been around much longer than you. Anyone can use it. Spotify and others negotiate more direct (and favorable) agreements. The RIAA is breaking their standard practice to try to extort from Google. Google calling the RIAA's bluff doesn't have me siding with the RIAA.
Do you similarly complain when Spotify and Apple negotiate more directly than the standard BMI/ASCAP licensing?
Did you also object when the RIAA literally hired mob hitmen to shut down the 100% legal operation, AllOfMP3?
Or are you just anti-Google, and the rest doesn't matter?
Surely it would be copyright infringement to redistribute those works without a licence from the rightsholders of some form, though,
Nope. The rightholder has licensed out the works to BMI/ASCAP in most cases, and YouTube could then get a license from those, without any involvement of the rightholders. That's commonly how it's done.
http://entertainment.howstuffw...
web sites are covered under BMI/ASAP licensing. These are RIAA organizations with blanket licensing agreements. The numbers were created for restaurants, not for something YouTube scale.
Oooh, something you've never heard of. Must be made up! You know everything. Except for common things, like licensing agreements through companies over 100 years old.
No, I'm not saying that's what YouTube is doing. I'm saying that's a common thing people do to pay minimal licensing to play works publicly. Simple, easy, and cheap. Works out about right for the numbers given, seems like YouTube could be over-paying, but then, they have to do something for those that upload songs that aren't under BMI or ASCAP.
Nope. With SSN (and name to match) with mother's maiden name, you can bypass or reset lots of passwords for banks, get new credit cards, and other things.
DOB and SSN would let you add/drop classes on the phone system at college. DOB + SSN (name not even needed), and you could waste thousands of dollars of someone's money. Or cause them to fail out of college, dropping the classes they are in, enroll them in ones they don't know about, for solid F's for the year.
I was, but it doesn't matter. I'm still accused of being partisan, every time I attack a bad action by anyone. I have managed to vote in every election since '92, and never for the winner. What else can I do?
But it's not copyright infrimgement. It's paying agreed charges when the charges weren't well thought out by RIAA when they were set before YouTube was conceived. There is no piracy/infringement happening, just a unilateral change to terms of a contract because the RIAA wants more money.
I used to post it on slashdot years ago. The racists never cared, so I haven't bothered to keep track of it. If I had a cite, and posted it, it wouldn't change your opinion anyway. But humans like to pretend they are rational, even with proof to the opposite.
A receipt from a house sale, along with the account number the cash was withdrawn from. "proof of fund" is "proof of legality of funds". So I could prove they weren't gained from a drug deal.
In the US, when someone robs a bank, the bank calls it "identity theft" and bills their customers. The rest of the world treats the bank robbery like the US treats a physical bank robbery, only the bank loses funds.
I carried $50k around for a week, and I kept proof of funds with me, in case I was stopped. As you say, I was more worried about the cops than the robbers.
I've never had a checking account with late fees or high interest rates. Many people who carry cash also have debt. Your statements are illogical.
LAst time I was in a power outage, they did pull out the old sliders. Most places still have them, though in many cases, buried in a box in the manager's office nobody knows about.
which of these people entering the shop is the most risky
In which case, the Black guy should never be the answer. Black people don't rob jewelry stores. They may be more likely to rob a non-white owned convenience store, but the reason Black on Black crime is so high is that everyone knows that they have a much much better chance of getting away with it, since the cops don't really care about the Black on Black crime.
Are you seriously claiming that a group comprising 6% of the population committing 50% of the murders is less violent because of some sort of mysterious systemic racism?
Yes. Because a Black person with no prior arrests is less likely to commit murder than a white person with no arrests.
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, arrests cause crime. That you can't understand the reason doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Go on, prove my statement (about the un-arrested) wrong if you don't believe it.
If you fix any one of them, it will help in all other areas. Saying "there's too many factors, we can't fix it all" and giving up won't help anything. But the latter seems to be the most common reaction.
The stats don't define "PC", so the stats are useless. They used to exclude laptops, then included them. Do they include embedded systems, or only "home PCs"?
From the quotes provided, they only include built systems by top-tier home PC makers. So it's hard to tell what's being measured.
But if the question is racist, the answer should be as well. "Which of the people entering my store is most likely a convicted felon?" Well, since we are so efficient at convicting the Black males, he should be singled out by the AI as a risk.