If I'm looking at this right, we have three entities involved: The original publisher, the infringing site, and the advertiser who buys space from the infringing site.
Now I sympathize with the original publisher who was ripped off. But his case is against the infringing site - not the advertiser. I can't imagine that the publisher could ever take successful legal action against an advertiser without first taking action against the the actual infringer. That leaves the advertiser mostly in the clear.
So what incentive does the advertiser have to get involved? These publishers are essentially telling them "I want you to pay me instead of your client for each instance where I claim your client ripped me off." That opens up a big legal can of worms for the advertiser, as well as imposing more overhead on his operations. And for what gain to the advertiser?
In theory, I have the right to do whatever I am able to so long as it doesn't involve force against you.
In the case of physical theft, I have to initiate force to remove your computer from you.
In the case of "copyright violation", I am NOT initiating any force against anyone. Someone else has to step in and initiate force to stop me from doing what I am doing.
I have the natural right to build the same computer form myself that you built for yourself with my own materials.
I have the natural right to sing the same song I heard you sing with my own mouth.
The "copyright" system initiates force against me to remove that natural right and replace it with an artificially limited one.
I'm not arguing for violating or abolishing copyrights here. Just highlighting the incredibly obvious difference that so many people have to stretch the bounds of credulity to ignore.
> I'm also noticing a disturbing trend in "quantum mechanics" being spewed whenever we don't understand something. .
It's simple, eldavojohn. Let me explain it to you as it was taught to me.
In the beginning Quantum Mechanics created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Quantum Mechanics moved upon the face of the waters.....
I leave you with one last point: if a racist asks us to consider their views and respect their wants, we do not do so because we feel they are categorically wrong;if a religious bigot demands that we honor his religious views by suppressing all others, we do not do so because they are categorically wrong;
I believe I'll add you to my twit filter. As nice as it would be to continue thinking and following this discussion, you are "categorically wrong" and there is no point in continuing to consider your views.
Yes, that is contract law. You can require anything under a contract
Oops. Read that last part again. Are you sure you can require anything under a contract?
Contracts are enforced by governments. And some governments have things that they will not allow in a contract. Some neighbourhoods here in the US used to sell houses under contract that you can only resell them to another "white" person. Hey, it's in the contract, and the buyer agreed, right?
The government that enforces the contract has stipulations as to what they will allow in the contract. And to prevent "gaming the system", many impose penalties for pushing illegitimate contracts.
The DMCA is an American law that covers unlicenced music, this dispute isn't happening in America, .
Google is an American company and subject to the DMCA. You can file a takedown notice from Tijuana if you like.
this dispute isn't happening in America, and it's not about unlicenced music. <snip> it's a dispute over how much Google want to pay for the blanket licence that the PRS sell them
Huh? It's not about unlicensed music - it's about a music license? Oh, I see. Chewbacca is a wookie from Kashyyyk...
The simple point is that if Google needs a license from PRS, and Google doesn't buy a license from PRS, then PRS has legal avenues to recover damages from Google. No whining required.
If Google is using their material illegally then that should be their complaint, and they should take it to court.
But it isn't. Their complaint - and yours - is that Google isn't buying the license at the price demanded. They demand that Google keep the videos and pay the license.
In fact, it's odd how an individual thinking on his own can coincidentally come to the bizarre conclusions from a twisted corporate press release.
I believe that is their business decision to make. I'm not going to sit here and debate what they should do. But I am going to defend their right to make their own decision.
And in a prior post, you said (and I quote):
Why should the authors of songs be the ones who bail Google out of their bad decision to bay $1.65 billion for a loss-making idea?
Well, why should Google continue to throw money at a loss-making idea?
Look at all the moving parts before slandering a group going after your "sainted" google.
Why do you PRS trolls all act like Google is making money off the songs and not paying?
Read my lips: They stopped playing the fucking songs.
How are they making "millions upon millions" off these people when they are not playing their work?
You act like these so-called artists have a right to be on YouTube and a right to collect for it. But nobody is required to carry their content and pay their license.
it's about YouTube's decision to opt-in to the PRS licence, then realising they are making a loss on the deal and looking for a way out.
"Looking" for a way out? No. There is a way out. Don't play the content. Which is what they are doing. This is a service not a mafia family. One can leave.
Why should the authors of songs be the ones who bail Google out of their bad decision to bay $1.65 billion for a loss-making idea?
Who says Google should be compelled to continue a service if it's losing money?
If I decide cable TV cost too much and shut off the service unless they drop the price, am I guilty of demanding the cable company bail me out of my bad decision to watch TV?
> you never propose a solution to the problem of people or organisations who use that free speech for nefarious purposes.
The solution is education, of which free speech is an integral part. How am I supposed to know if their purposes are nefarious if I'm never allowed to hear them? Oh, I see. I should take your word for it. How do I know if your purposes are nefarious?
> Take the Nazis for instance. If you really believe your nation would be better run by Nazis, then you need to read a bit of history.
I think we all know what Nazis are, smoker.
> Time and time again the democratic process has proved that people don't agree with it.
They were elected democratically. And they used their elected power to censor and "protect" the people against "dangerous" views that countered the Nazi party line.
> But you are willing to give the Nazis the right to free speech and you just hope that nobody ever takes them seriously enough to get any power.
I'll take that gamble if it means I get to hear from everyone - not just what the people currently in power want me to hear.
Seriously, the next time a Nazi type politician comes to any sort of power it won't be by wearing a swastika, hanging pictures of Hitler, and calling himself a Nazi. You'll need to recognize them by their beliefs. Which leads to:
> What's the quote ?
> "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
And how do you propose to be vigilant with someone else telling you which viewpoints you can read and which ones you can't. The author of that quote wasn't referring to vigilance on the part of the government. He meant you, smoker.
> Most people who should read this (the ones I have a problem with) stopped reading as soon...
You demonstrate an unsurpassed lack of understanding of macro-economics. If the labor is expensive, than pray thee, how do you make american products compete in the international market?
You don't compete.
The only way you can reasonably compete with someone in a third world country who lives in a plywood shack and eats a bowl of rice a day is if you are willing to live the same lifestyle.
In an International economy, money is a bit like water. It's always going to roll down to the low points. While it's true that this has the advantage of raising the standard of living at the low end, it also decreases it at the high end. This is why there are borders and tariffs - to build a dam between economies that regulates the flow.
I've seen more than a few sentimental references to that poem on the statue in NY harbor. That poem was put there during the immigration boom of the early 20th century. Recall that during those years, we had low wages and abuse of workers on a massive scale. We tried to patch it then (and ever since) by running in circles passing more and more regulations on business. By nature, regulations limit freedoms and cost money to enforce. It could have (and still can) be done another way.
The real problem was that jobs and applicants are a supply and demand market. The demand for workers was finite, but the supply was unlimited. So a worker's value (to the company) was near zero. In a more balanced economy where the labor supply was closer to demand, employers would have had to make some reasonable concessions. But they were under no such pressure.
What's needed is a sensible trade and immigration policy - one that balances immigration with the job market, and prevents us from competing openly with countries who do not share our standard of living. Yes, it's true that prices would go up without cheap imports. But wages would hold too and we would have a balance.
> Yours or not, it is not possible (generally) to legally immediately remove someone from a residence they have been in for some time (provided that person has not broken any other laws).
I had a "roommate" who was sponging off me for about a year. When asked to leave, the roommate refused. She claimed that I needed to go through formal eviction proceedings. As much as I hated to do so, I called the police.
The police stated that in order for this person to have rights she needed to either have her name on the lease, or some proof that she had paid utilities or other expenses related to the residence. Since she never paid a dime towards anything, the police removed her.
> Maybe their whole production process is customized with a Vista image.
That's what I thought.
Believe it or not, I just chatted with a Dell sales rep. I had heard a little about "downgrade rights", and wanted to know what the procedure was for downgrading it myself.
I was told that the downgrade option came only with Vista business, and it was $99. That price is the same whether I use Vista business, or downgrade myself, or they downgrade for me.
I could understand Dell not wanting to supply two images off the line. But this has nothing to do with that. Upgrading Vista is the only way you can get a license for XP.
Since Dell's price doesn't change (between the business versions), it's obvious MS is behind this. And while it stinks, I can't actually see how it breaks any laws. But then I Am Not An AntiTrust Lawyer. I'm just a guy shopping for a used laptop.
> But if you read TFA, it states that MS is not charging consumers for the downgrade, the OEMs are.
Microsoft mandates that you must upgrade to Vista Business to downgrade.
So unless Microsoft is selling the Basic and Business versions for the same price, they ARE profiting from the downgrade.
> Anyone who wants to live like someone from the 60's can do so easily, and they don't even need to work 9-5 at a steel mill.
No, they can't.
As the GP pointed out, you could afford medical care back then. Of course it was more primitive than today's when it comes to advanced diseases like cancer. But you could have an appendix removed, broken bones set, infections treated with antibiotics, etc without breaking your bank account.
> The TV was half the size, a quarter of the resolution, and received an eighth of the stations.
And much more costly to build here in America, yet somehow they could afford it.(hmmm?)
> Yes, they had two new cars. But those cars were unsafe, noisy, and slow compared to cars we have today.
Leaving the debate on the safety and speed aside, they cost less than half of the average (single earner) family's yearly income. Likewise, a house cost about 3 times the same family's income (at a lower interest rate as well).
Oh, and the pension he mentioned? Gone.
No, you can't live 1960 style anymore. If you're in a single earner family today, you're either a CEO or you're on food stamps.
Remember the days where you could walk into a place and hand them the help wanted sign in the window, and after a few questions, you were hired?
Remember the days when an employer was just someone paying you to do a job, and not responsible for everything that you do, or might do, or everything that might happen to you?
I suspect that if the political and legal landscape looked like it did 60 years ago, a man could still get a job that way. He's not much of a risk to the employer, and if he doesn't work out he's gone tomorrow.
But when you are responsible for health insurance, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, and legal liability in the millions for anything your employee does, you have to be able to show the courts and/or the insurance company that you did some sort of "due diligence" - even if it's just a bogus cover.
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm looking at this right, we have three entities involved: The original publisher, the infringing site, and the advertiser who buys space from the infringing site.
Now I sympathize with the original publisher who was ripped off. But his case is against the infringing site - not the advertiser. I can't imagine that the publisher could ever take successful legal action against an advertiser without first taking action against the the actual infringer. That leaves the advertiser mostly in the clear.
So what incentive does the advertiser have to get involved? These publishers are essentially telling them "I want you to pay me instead of your client for each instance where I claim your client ripped me off." That opens up a big legal can of worms for the advertiser, as well as imposing more overhead on his operations. And for what gain to the advertiser?
In theory, I have the right to do whatever I am able to so long as it doesn't involve force against you.
In the case of physical theft, I have to initiate force to remove your computer from you.
In the case of "copyright violation", I am NOT initiating any force against anyone. Someone else has to step in and initiate force to stop me from doing what I am doing.
I have the natural right to build the same computer form myself that you built for yourself with my own materials.
I have the natural right to sing the same song I heard you sing with my own mouth.
The "copyright" system initiates force against me to remove that natural right and replace it with an artificially limited one.
I'm not arguing for violating or abolishing copyrights here. Just highlighting the incredibly obvious difference that so many people have to stretch the bounds of credulity to ignore.
.
It's simple, eldavojohn. Let me explain it to you as it was taught to me.
In the beginning Quantum Mechanics created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Quantum Mechanics moved upon the face of the waters.....
But seriously, very insightful post.
.
I found it humorous and fairly well written. Thanks for pointing it out.
I believe I'll add you to my twit filter. As nice as it would be to continue thinking and following this discussion, you are "categorically wrong" and there is no point in continuing to consider your views.
Good Day.
Oops. Read that last part again. Are you sure you can require anything under a contract?
Contracts are enforced by governments. And some governments have things that they will not allow in a contract. Some neighbourhoods here in the US used to sell houses under contract that you can only resell them to another "white" person. Hey, it's in the contract, and the buyer agreed, right?
The government that enforces the contract has stipulations as to what they will allow in the contract. And to prevent "gaming the system", many impose penalties for pushing illegitimate contracts.
Case in point.
.
Google is an American company and subject to the DMCA. You can file a takedown notice from Tijuana if you like.
this dispute isn't happening in America, and it's not about unlicenced music. <snip> it's a dispute over how much Google want to pay for the blanket licence that the PRS sell them
Huh? It's not about unlicensed music - it's about a music license? Oh, I see. Chewbacca is a wookie from Kashyyyk...
The simple point is that if Google needs a license from PRS, and Google doesn't buy a license from PRS, then PRS has legal avenues to recover damages from Google. No whining required.
If Google is using their material illegally then that should be their complaint, and they should take it to court. But it isn't. Their complaint - and yours - is that Google isn't buying the license at the price demanded. They demand that Google keep the videos and pay the license.
In fact, it's odd how an individual thinking on his own can coincidentally come to the bizarre conclusions from a twisted corporate press release.
I smell Astroturf. Really cheap Astroturf.
.
Why do you keep insisting that someone is at fault here? It's simple business negotiation. If I think the price is too high, I don't buy the product.
The PRS's position is ridiculous - publicly demanding that Google MUST keep buying their product at the going rate. Why?
If the product is marketable, let the customer go and find another customer willing to pay the going rate.
Users upload files. If they are not licensed, they get taken down when the rights holder files a DMCA notice.
If they don't, the rights holder can sue. Assuming they have legal rights, the court will uphold them.
And don't tell me that poor little PRS doesn't have the resources to go to court.
I believe that is their business decision to make. I'm not going to sit here and debate what they should do. But I am going to defend their right to make their own decision.
And in a prior post, you said (and I quote): Why should the authors of songs be the ones who bail Google out of their bad decision to bay $1.65 billion for a loss-making idea?
Well, why should Google continue to throw money at a loss-making idea?
Yes Rico. Ka-BOOM!
Why do you PRS trolls all act like Google is making money off the songs and not paying?
Read my lips: They stopped playing the fucking songs.
How are they making "millions upon millions" off these people when they are not playing their work?
You act like these so-called artists have a right to be on YouTube and a right to collect for it. But nobody is required to carry their content and pay their license.
"Looking" for a way out? No. There is a way out. Don't play the content. Which is what they are doing. This is a service not a mafia family. One can leave.
Why should the authors of songs be the ones who bail Google out of their bad decision to bay $1.65 billion for a loss-making idea?
Who says Google should be compelled to continue a service if it's losing money?
If I decide cable TV cost too much and shut off the service unless they drop the price, am I guilty of demanding the cable company bail me out of my bad decision to watch TV?
The solution is education, of which free speech is an integral part. How am I supposed to know if their purposes are nefarious if I'm never allowed to hear them? Oh, I see. I should take your word for it. How do I know if your purposes are nefarious?
> Take the Nazis for instance. If you really believe your nation would be better run by Nazis, then you need to read a bit of history.
I think we all know what Nazis are, smoker.
> Time and time again the democratic process has proved that people don't agree with it.
They were elected democratically. And they used their elected power to censor and "protect" the people against "dangerous" views that countered the Nazi party line.
> But you are willing to give the Nazis the right to free speech and you just hope that nobody ever takes them seriously enough to get any power.
I'll take that gamble if it means I get to hear from everyone - not just what the people currently in power want me to hear.
Seriously, the next time a Nazi type politician comes to any sort of power it won't be by wearing a swastika, hanging pictures of Hitler, and calling himself a Nazi. You'll need to recognize them by their beliefs. Which leads to:
> What's the quote ?
> "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
And how do you propose to be vigilant with someone else telling you which viewpoints you can read and which ones you can't. The author of that quote wasn't referring to vigilance on the part of the government. He meant you, smoker.
> Most people who should read this (the ones I have a problem with) stopped reading as soon...
Wish I'd have stopped sooner. It wasn't worth it.
The rain delay for trains in Spain occur mainly on the plains.
You don't compete.
The only way you can reasonably compete with someone in a third world country who lives in a plywood shack and eats a bowl of rice a day is if you are willing to live the same lifestyle.
In an International economy, money is a bit like water. It's always going to roll down to the low points. While it's true that this has the advantage of raising the standard of living at the low end, it also decreases it at the high end. This is why there are borders and tariffs - to build a dam between economies that regulates the flow.
I've seen more than a few sentimental references to that poem on the statue in NY harbor. That poem was put there during the immigration boom of the early 20th century. Recall that during those years, we had low wages and abuse of workers on a massive scale. We tried to patch it then (and ever since) by running in circles passing more and more regulations on business. By nature, regulations limit freedoms and cost money to enforce. It could have (and still can) be done another way.
The real problem was that jobs and applicants are a supply and demand market. The demand for workers was finite, but the supply was unlimited. So a worker's value (to the company) was near zero. In a more balanced economy where the labor supply was closer to demand, employers would have had to make some reasonable concessions. But they were under no such pressure.
What's needed is a sensible trade and immigration policy - one that balances immigration with the job market, and prevents us from competing openly with countries who do not share our standard of living. Yes, it's true that prices would go up without cheap imports. But wages would hold too and we would have a balance.
I call upon the mighty mods above to smite thee and all thy trollish accomplices!!!
I had a "roommate" who was sponging off me for about a year. When asked to leave, the roommate refused. She claimed that I needed to go through formal eviction proceedings. As much as I hated to do so, I called the police.
The police stated that in order for this person to have rights she needed to either have her name on the lease, or some proof that she had paid utilities or other expenses related to the residence. Since she never paid a dime towards anything, the police removed her.
You're right. It *shouldn't* be.
It's unfortunate that it is.
That's what I thought.
Believe it or not, I just chatted with a Dell sales rep. I had heard a little about "downgrade rights", and wanted to know what the procedure was for downgrading it myself.
I was told that the downgrade option came only with Vista business, and it was $99. That price is the same whether I use Vista business, or downgrade myself, or they downgrade for me.
I could understand Dell not wanting to supply two images off the line. But this has nothing to do with that. Upgrading Vista is the only way you can get a license for XP.
Since Dell's price doesn't change (between the business versions), it's obvious MS is behind this. And while it stinks, I can't actually see how it breaks any laws. But then I Am Not An AntiTrust Lawyer. I'm just a guy shopping for a used laptop.
Microsoft mandates that you must upgrade to Vista Business to downgrade.
So unless Microsoft is selling the Basic and Business versions for the same price, they ARE profiting from the downgrade.
No, they can't.
As the GP pointed out, you could afford medical care back then. Of course it was more primitive than today's when it comes to advanced diseases like cancer. But you could have an appendix removed, broken bones set, infections treated with antibiotics, etc without breaking your bank account.
> The TV was half the size, a quarter of the resolution, and received an eighth of the stations.
And much more costly to build here in America, yet somehow they could afford it.(hmmm?)
> Yes, they had two new cars. But those cars were unsafe, noisy, and slow compared to cars we have today.
Leaving the debate on the safety and speed aside, they cost less than half of the average (single earner) family's yearly income. Likewise, a house cost about 3 times the same family's income (at a lower interest rate as well).
Oh, and the pension he mentioned? Gone.
No, you can't live 1960 style anymore. If you're in a single earner family today, you're either a CEO or you're on food stamps.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
Accidentally modded redundant instead of insightful. Sorry. Posting to kill moderation.
Remember the days when an employer was just someone paying you to do a job, and not responsible for everything that you do, or might do, or everything that might happen to you?
I suspect that if the political and legal landscape looked like it did 60 years ago, a man could still get a job that way. He's not much of a risk to the employer, and if he doesn't work out he's gone tomorrow.
But when you are responsible for health insurance, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, and legal liability in the millions for anything your employee does, you have to be able to show the courts and/or the insurance company that you did some sort of "due diligence" - even if it's just a bogus cover.