it's a reasonable request from hormel. does it matter who dilutes a trademark first? is it really that big a deal for somebody to make a new icon? what would it actually take to get somebody to change the icon?
it does however list seaside music theatre. ummm hmmm. besides everybody already knows it means surface mount anyway, not this spurious muffin threbbing you guys are talking about.
what if they liked their school overall, but had been complaining about a particular person/aspect of the school they disliked. of course its a private school so it can do whatever they like, but can they expect students to never complain about anything and love every aspect of the school? no.
if napster can stop it on their servers, but the technology exists (and is in use) for it to happen in a way that nobody has the ability to stop infringement...well its sort of like screwing napster for something people are doing anyway. i don't know its just interesting
heres a wild idea. how about when somebody compromises a system, for whatever reason, you judge the case based on merits, instead of trying to lump it together with some vaguely relatated situations and coin a term for it.
Name one example other than this where a politician has acted purely on principle (as opposed to party/personal politicking, special interest pandering, pork, or quid pro quo favors).
how far back is their list going to go. are they going to examine the older contracts. what if there was one contract that was different from all the others, will those songs be on the list?
well I don't think its a good idea to just assume the RIAA owns every track of music produced in the past 50 years. I think the actual contract that was signed should be consulted, artists have the right to know if they're on the list, because they might not have signed that kind of contract. I seriously doubt the RIAA has only one contract.
i think a better solution would be the artists have to contact napster, instead of the riaa. what if something is on the list they don't have the right to block. what if the artist doesn't want it blocked and their contract doesn't forbid alternative distributions? is somebody going to doublecheck this list?
because they don't deserve pay:
1) the song is beyond the original copyright period (14 years or so) and you disagree with the extension.
2) you own the tape and shouldn't be required to also buy a cd
3) you own the cd but don't have the ability to rip it
since you got rated up instead of down i thought i'd reply, probably should be rated down as a troll though.
Slashdot Mirror
a private corporation that gets secret security to handle it's security issues. i wonder who's tax money pays for that?
you can't make bucketloads of money of a mediocre website, nor should you be able to. (of course i'm assuming /. makes less than bucketloads of money).
just patent everything. fuck it.
The more I hear about it, the more I expect it to suck, like most movies that are made for mass consumption.
because they're patenting what a VCR already does.
that you don't smoke pot
afghanistan is already covered with mines, so we can leave that step out.
google doesn't really advertise during the super bowl either.
it's a reasonable request from hormel. does it matter who dilutes a trademark first? is it really that big a deal for somebody to make a new icon? what would it actually take to get somebody to change the icon?
it does however list seaside music theatre. ummm hmmm. besides everybody already knows it means surface mount anyway, not this spurious muffin threbbing you guys are talking about.
what if they liked their school overall, but had been complaining about a particular person/aspect of the school they disliked. of course its a private school so it can do whatever they like, but can they expect students to never complain about anything and love every aspect of the school? no.
kind of makes me think of the cigarette companies
if napster can stop it on their servers, but the technology exists (and is in use) for it to happen in a way that nobody has the ability to stop infringement...well its sort of like screwing napster for something people are doing anyway. i don't know its just interesting
speaking of power consumption regulating down to 3 from five volts isn't power efficient, why do you need 5 volts?
heres a wild idea. how about when somebody compromises a system, for whatever reason, you judge the case based on merits, instead of trying to lump it together with some vaguely relatated situations and coin a term for it.
hopefully though, pc companies will reduced profit which will in turn, if we're lucky, lead to reduced marketing. keep your fingers crossed.
Name one example other than this where a politician has acted purely on principle (as opposed to party/personal politicking, special interest pandering, pork, or quid pro quo favors).
I sent an email to Kay Bailey Hutchison (my senator from texas) and received a nicely worded response within a day. So I disagree with you.
what obligation does a store owner have to let you use your phone in his store.
No banner ads but theres still about 6 cups left if you hurry.
how far back is their list going to go. are they going to examine the older contracts. what if there was one contract that was different from all the others, will those songs be on the list?
well I don't think its a good idea to just assume the RIAA owns every track of music produced in the past 50 years. I think the actual contract that was signed should be consulted, artists have the right to know if they're on the list, because they might not have signed that kind of contract. I seriously doubt the RIAA has only one contract.
i think a better solution would be the artists have to contact napster, instead of the riaa. what if something is on the list they don't have the right to block. what if the artist doesn't want it blocked and their contract doesn't forbid alternative distributions? is somebody going to doublecheck this list?
because they don't deserve pay:
1) the song is beyond the original copyright period (14 years or so) and you disagree with the extension.
2) you own the tape and shouldn't be required to also buy a cd
3) you own the cd but don't have the ability to rip it
since you got rated up instead of down i thought i'd reply, probably should be rated down as a troll though.
if one company owned a monopoly and used their power illegally, yes.