...and who have independent sources of income, since they'll STILL be victims of KaZaA and their ilk, and without a trade organization it'll be even harder for them to crack down on people evading royalties.
We all recall how astonishingly successful and remunerative "The Plant" was, no?
Markets require consent. If you don't like the RIAA's terms, you're free to withhold your money and walk away. You're even free to form your own music production company if you prefer, and if they act anticompetitively, call the FTC. But the RIAA can not forcibly take away your money unless you've seized something from them first.
However, infringing on their copyrights is a one-sided transaction, and THEY are not required to consent to that. Unilateral, involuntary transactions are more commonly known as "theft".
Because young girls idolize boy bands and Spears clones, that's why. And they're willing to spend oodles of money to buy their "music" and merchandise, and to stand at concerts shrieking their brains out.
It's the artist's decision to make -- and yes, some, perhaps many, are in it for the money. If it were the sole source of your livelihood, you might adopt the same attitude... Consider, for instance, how many of the best paintings in history were commissioned works...
George Lucas certainly did -- he stated that the main concern of a filmmaker is for a film to make enough money so he can make another film.
No, no. There ARE elements of the left that support regulations on "inappropriate" content, with Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman being among the highest-profile ones. The left also gets associated with political correctness, as its various constituencies lobby for speech restrictions, the boycotting of advertisers who advertise on conservative shows, and all that.
Of course, talk about sorcery or homosexuality, and then the Rev. Falwell comes out a-swingin'. Both wings have their authoritarian segments.
Things "that may portray a distorted or possibly dangerous view of life for a child" -- I'd say that the Bible and the Koran both qualify. Faith denies reason, and promoting faith over reasoning does not seem particularly beneficial.
Your taxes went up with the Progressives, with the New Dealers, and the Great Society supporters, not due to corporatists, as all three groups explicitly wanted large-scale redistribution of the wealth.
Corporations also don't give a damn about what arms you carry, unless they're in that business.
You want to blame somebody? Blame everybody who refuses to follow political news, who fails to apply rational thought to issues, and who fails to vote, let alone partake in politics in any other way.
If somebody finds it offensive, yes, you'd better watch out. Recall, for instance, that the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled that the standard for sexual harassment should be "reasonable woman", not "reasonable person", and that psychological harm is not required...
It's not a First Amendment issue if the government isn't involved. Is the age restriction statuatory there, or is it simply store policy for non-governmental reasons?
Normally, at least, we don't scream for the extermination of other cultures. We tolerated the Taliban, for instance, until they decided that protecting their "guests" was a higher priority than obeying any semblance of international conventions regarding terrorism.
You'd drive up your processor-memory bandwidth requirements, since presumably you'd want to keep those larger registers fed. You might also require more silicon, and a physically larger processor creates issues of its own like how fast a signal can propagate on it, which will influence how much you can drive up clock speed. You'd then have to justify the increased bits.
IA64 goes a bit of the way there, via design features like EPIC, but it'll be *cough* interesting *cough* to see how well the compiler authors do in creating good optimizers that can take advantage of it.
It might be a typo if the online catalog was automatically generated, and the $200-off was activated by a checkbox. I don't use BestBuy, but some online sites do sometimes have identical discounts on multiple items...
And if somebody makes an accidental launch, or if a false alarm causes a jumpy government to order a launch before the hotline rings? Would you like to be the one writing letters saying, "Well, we didn't think of that, so your relatives are all dead." ?
Or if an SSBN or silo crew is bribed or seized by force? You do know that they're capable of autonomous launches for retalliatory strikes, right? And, unlike, say, "suitcase nukes", they're are quite a few, and you're not going to be able to lock 'em in a heavily secured warehouse anytime soon.
Fair use does allow limited reproduction for education and research, although it's a grey area -- selling "course packs" without copyright holders' permission, for instance, is not a particularly swift idea as far as I can tell.
Perhaps in your case -- but that's your decision. If it were a creative work that I did not mean for public distribution, I'd probably destroy all copies (at least the ones that I would have access to) after grading regardless of how well it did.
The artists that the RIAA signs have generally signed contracts that prohibit random third-party distribution. If they wanted to distribute music online for free, they could have opted for that and walked away from the RIAA -- and probably some have done that already. It is their decision to make.
If it's a creative design in a limited run, yes, something has been lost -- because the chair is no longer a rare item, and the designer has lost control over its duplication.
Would the Pyramids be as fascinating if every other civilization within a thousand miles had cloned them by the score? Would a painter appreciate somebody sitting right next to him, duplicating his every brush stroke, and selling the work when the original painter does -- or, more precisely, giving it away?
If you were writing a novel, and then somebody cracked your account and copied the draft, and then started walking around to publishers... have you lost anything?
And if "distribution control" is not something of value, then exactly what, prithee tell, are the artists selling to the recording companies? Legitimacy for the sake of feeling good? Don't make me laugh.
Newspapers make most of their revenue from advertising. Some newspapers seem to devote practically half their space or more to advertisements...
Music CDs, on the other hand, aren't sponsored, and they're advertised one HELL of a lot more aggressively than most newspapers -- probably has to do with the audience being more subject to faddish obsessions. You don't see people wantonly swithcing newspaper subscriptions that often.
According to Pricewatch, a 180GB SCSI might be 'bout $1K or more. 'course, how many SCSI fiends are there among the MP3-burning segment? Drives like that, I'd expect to see for people building network file servers...
...but bnetd does thus facilitate infringement, bypassing an "effective" technological access protection method without the authorization of the copyright holder, which puts it squarely in DMCA land. It might make an interesting test case, actually.
Blizzard is under no obligation to provide a CD authentication service for bnetd, even if that would mean that bnetd became completely legit and even if that boosted sales significantly due to more people being able to play. For one thing, they probably don't want one non-Blizzard server getting large numbers of submitted CD keys; for another, the authentication scheme might be useful for a key generator, depending on how sparse the set of valid keys is. But even if it were completely unmitigated good for Blizzard, the bnetd folks have no right to force it upon Blizzard, anymore than doctors or health insurance companies can force people to eat low-fat diets.
I doubt the 80%, considering that the firearms manufacturers have their own lobby, and that it and the NRA have not infrequently clashed over specific details of various proposals.
Slashdot Mirror
...and who have independent sources of income, since they'll STILL be victims of KaZaA and their ilk, and without a trade organization it'll be even harder for them to crack down on people evading royalties.
We all recall how astonishingly successful and remunerative "The Plant" was, no?
Markets require consent. If you don't like the RIAA's terms, you're free to withhold your money and walk away. You're even free to form your own music production company if you prefer, and if they act anticompetitively, call the FTC. But the RIAA can not forcibly take away your money unless you've seized something from them first.
However, infringing on their copyrights is a one-sided transaction, and THEY are not required to consent to that. Unilateral, involuntary transactions are more commonly known as "theft".
Because young girls idolize boy bands and Spears clones, that's why. And they're willing to spend oodles of money to buy their "music" and merchandise, and to stand at concerts shrieking their brains out.
It's the artist's decision to make -- and yes, some, perhaps many, are in it for the money. If it were the sole source of your livelihood, you might adopt the same attitude... Consider, for instance, how many of the best paintings in history were commissioned works...
George Lucas certainly did -- he stated that the main concern of a filmmaker is for a film to make enough money so he can make another film.
No, no. There ARE elements of the left that support regulations on "inappropriate" content, with Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman being among the highest-profile ones. The left also gets associated with political correctness, as its various constituencies lobby for speech restrictions, the boycotting of advertisers who advertise on conservative shows, and all that.
Of course, talk about sorcery or homosexuality, and then the Rev. Falwell comes out a-swingin'. Both wings have their authoritarian segments.
Hmmm.
Things "that may portray a distorted or possibly dangerous view of life for a child" -- I'd say that the Bible and the Koran both qualify. Faith denies reason, and promoting faith over reasoning does not seem particularly beneficial.
Your taxes went up with the Progressives, with the New Dealers, and the Great Society supporters, not due to corporatists, as all three groups explicitly wanted large-scale redistribution of the wealth.
Corporations also don't give a damn about what arms you carry, unless they're in that business.
You want to blame somebody? Blame everybody who refuses to follow political news, who fails to apply rational thought to issues, and who fails to vote, let alone partake in politics in any other way.
If somebody finds it offensive, yes, you'd better watch out. Recall, for instance, that the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled that the standard for sexual harassment should be "reasonable woman", not "reasonable person", and that psychological harm is not required...
*sigh*
It's not a First Amendment issue if the government isn't involved. Is the age restriction statuatory there, or is it simply store policy for non-governmental reasons?
You DON'T want to have an Aibo humping your leg. After all, it won't get tired until its batteries run out...
In Pennsylvania, the ever business-friendly Allegheny County tacks on an additional 1% sales tax.
Normally, at least, we don't scream for the extermination of other cultures. We tolerated the Taliban, for instance, until they decided that protecting their "guests" was a higher priority than obeying any semblance of international conventions regarding terrorism.
*shrug*
You'd drive up your processor-memory bandwidth requirements, since presumably you'd want to keep those larger registers fed. You might also require more silicon, and a physically larger processor creates issues of its own like how fast a signal can propagate on it, which will influence how much you can drive up clock speed. You'd then have to justify the increased bits.
IA64 goes a bit of the way there, via design features like EPIC, but it'll be *cough* interesting *cough* to see how well the compiler authors do in creating good optimizers that can take advantage of it.
It might be a typo if the online catalog was automatically generated, and the $200-off was activated by a checkbox. I don't use BestBuy, but some online sites do sometimes have identical discounts on multiple items...
That's Senator Jar-Jar Binks, at least according to IMDB and other sources.
I think this Lucas quote says it best:
"There's only one issue for a filmmaker," he says. "Will this make its money back so I can make the next one?"
From a Time Magazine article.
And if somebody makes an accidental launch, or if a false alarm causes a jumpy government to order a launch before the hotline rings? Would you like to be the one writing letters saying, "Well, we didn't think of that, so your relatives are all dead." ?
Or if an SSBN or silo crew is bribed or seized by force? You do know that they're capable of autonomous launches for retalliatory strikes, right? And, unlike, say, "suitcase nukes", they're are quite a few, and you're not going to be able to lock 'em in a heavily secured warehouse anytime soon.
Fair use does allow limited reproduction for education and research, although it's a grey area -- selling "course packs" without copyright holders' permission, for instance, is not a particularly swift idea as far as I can tell.
Perhaps in your case -- but that's your decision. If it were a creative work that I did not mean for public distribution, I'd probably destroy all copies (at least the ones that I would have access to) after grading regardless of how well it did.
The artists that the RIAA signs have generally signed contracts that prohibit random third-party distribution. If they wanted to distribute music online for free, they could have opted for that and walked away from the RIAA -- and probably some have done that already. It is their decision to make.
If it's a creative design in a limited run, yes, something has been lost -- because the chair is no longer a rare item, and the designer has lost control over its duplication.
Would the Pyramids be as fascinating if every other civilization within a thousand miles had cloned them by the score? Would a painter appreciate somebody sitting right next to him, duplicating his every brush stroke, and selling the work when the original painter does -- or, more precisely, giving it away?
If you were writing a novel, and then somebody cracked your account and copied the draft, and then started walking around to publishers... have you lost anything?
And if "distribution control" is not something of value, then exactly what, prithee tell, are the artists selling to the recording companies? Legitimacy for the sake of feeling good? Don't make me laugh.
Newspapers make most of their revenue from advertising. Some newspapers seem to devote practically half their space or more to advertisements...
Music CDs, on the other hand, aren't sponsored, and they're advertised one HELL of a lot more aggressively than most newspapers -- probably has to do with the audience being more subject to faddish obsessions. You don't see people wantonly swithcing newspaper subscriptions that often.
According to Pricewatch, a 180GB SCSI might be 'bout $1K or more. 'course, how many SCSI fiends are there among the MP3-burning segment? Drives like that, I'd expect to see for people building network file servers...
...but bnetd does thus facilitate infringement, bypassing an "effective" technological access protection method without the authorization of the copyright holder, which puts it squarely in DMCA land. It might make an interesting test case, actually.
Blizzard is under no obligation to provide a CD authentication service for bnetd, even if that would mean that bnetd became completely legit and even if that boosted sales significantly due to more people being able to play. For one thing, they probably don't want one non-Blizzard server getting large numbers of submitted CD keys; for another, the authentication scheme might be useful for a key generator, depending on how sparse the set of valid keys is. But even if it were completely unmitigated good for Blizzard, the bnetd folks have no right to force it upon Blizzard, anymore than doctors or health insurance companies can force people to eat low-fat diets.
I doubt the 80%, considering that the firearms manufacturers have their own lobby, and that it and the NRA have not infrequently clashed over specific details of various proposals.
And that to send a message to the daemon, you need to kill!