Actually you can comment on it as Symantec and others have mentioned this several times. They often comment about how it takes them 6 months to even acknowledge that the hole exists.
I am not sure who others is, but I raise an eyebrow to a competitor neigh-saying it's competitor. I am not saying they are wrong either, but again, there is a difference of view from the outside then the inside.
Second, having the browser integrated into the OS has made many non-critical holes even more critical as a result. Not opinion when every security agency tells you to dumb IE because of it's threat to your OS.
As I have said before, having the browser integrated allows me to go online and get hte browser that I want to use...and guess what, I don't have to worry about IE anymore - that is unless Mozilla distributers are including viruses in their version of firefox...oh wait.
And I'm afraid I disagree. When your roof is leaking, a bucket is not a permanent fix. Yopu fix the roof so you don't need the bucket. Maybe in your house, you like having a whole bunch of buckets around but not me.
When my roof leaks, the bucket is a temporary fix until the roofer can come and fix it. Also, if my roof has a hole that is prone to a leak, but it doesn't rain until November - well I guess I won't know until november. So cut MS some slack here, they are trying - really they are. i.e. Giant Anti-spyware --- last I heard MS didn't invent this spyware.
Ladies and gentleman, this is the mindset Microsoft has fostered in the populace. "It's good to diaper your OS like a baby with layers of applications to protect your OS from the Internet."
Spyware protection should ABSOLUTELY NOT be mandatory or part of the TCP/IP protocol (ha)--spyware takes advantages of flaws in Windows architectural design, and Microsoft should fix that design. Viruses rely on propagation, and systems like OS X simply don't have the mechanisms to allow for that--hence no viruses in five years. It doesn't even have a firewall enabled by default, because it keeps no open ports--an OS should NOT require a firewall to operate. It shouldn't keep open any port it doesn't need and shouldn't use any to begin with.
You really shouldn't generalize, one because in my case you are wrong, two because you haven't done (if you have please show this evidence) any qualified research into the sociological thought process of the people with regards to MS OS' and inclusive programs
See your opinion is that spyware is not absolutely mandatory, mine is different. It is an opinion, so state it as such, try not to make it sound a matter of fact. We bitched and moaned, and MS came up with a solution, now we still bitch and moan....
In related news: It has been determined that MS is not the source of viruses, but malicious hackers. Billy G rejoices in having his name cleared of creating viruses.
OS X did have a few exploits/viruses. MAC is also more expensive, and more proprietary - so I wouldn't boast it that much.
I'm afraid you don't know what are you talking about. Bloatware here means doing two antagonic things with the same package of expensive software while wasting your resources. The first thing is putting your system in danger with a poorly designed operating system. The second thing is trying to make it secure with more software instead of properly fixing the design from the beginning. It's like buying a sieve and some duct tape and expect it to behave like a big spoon:-)
Is that the official definition on/.? Well Would you point me to the/. dictionary please? Bloatware is oversized software. YOu know, solitaire that ranges about 50 megs, instead of under a meg. Bloatware is having a TON of extra stuff installed that are not needed but forced. Obviously there is some differing opinions on what is needed, but i guess you could use the MS card games (i.e. solitaire..i would say on a business laptop that would be bloatware).
Classic FUD.
Firefox has vulnerabilties, yes, but they tend to be:
1) Patched Faster
2) Less critical
3) Patched completely
4) Openly admitted to
You wish it was fud. It is true, just because you don't like the truth does not mean it. There was an article, fairly recently, on/. showing that in the past month or so FireFox had more security holes found the IE. Me saying that IE is better then FireFox based on that assumption is fud, but I didn't say which program was better. I have said I prefer FireFox though.
Oh and MS does admit to finding loopholes...generally after they fix it - and since they are closed source, I agree with this. Until something is fixed, why advertise it to people who would potentially use the exploit.
Wouldn't responsible be defined as fixing critical security holes that have been open for over 2 years
I cannot comment about this because I am not familiar with the internal working's of this issue and MS, and unless you work for MS (directly) neither are you.
Wouldn't responsible be not integrating the browser into the OS
That's a matter of opinion...While I use FireFox, I am happy that IE comes with my computer - you know, so that way I can get on the Internet for the first time and download me a copy of firefox.
Wouldn't responsible be not running all applications as root?
I'm pretty sure not all applications are run as root
Personally, I'd find it more responsible of them to fix inherent problems with the OS. The 'band-aid' of the antivirus system is nice but by no means is it a permanent fix
You, as well as everyone else here, knows that the band-aid method is the best method. With millions, and billions of lines of code it is impossible, even for a large organization like MS, to find every loophole...point in case, FireFox - as it is gaining more popular, more loopholes are being found - and what is Mozilla doing? They are band-aiding it up. See every company utilizes that method - it's called a patch, and they have been around for as far as I can remember, and I have been using computers all the way back since commodore 64 and 386 pc clone.
Your assuming MS is going to charge for this...they might give it for free like their anti-spyware program. Also, even if the do charge for it -- guess what, symantec also charges...either way I got to pay. And MS is not totally to blame for people exploiting it....and if you want to say MS sucks because it has exploits, then you better say that the Mozilla foundation sucks because it also has exploits.
A firewall should never be required to run any PC, because no PC should ever respond to a connection attempt that it wasn't designed/configured to handle. A firewall's sole purpose is to close ports that should not have been open in the first place.
I never said a fire wall should be required to run on a pc...i said it should come with an OS. I may want to have ports open, but still need to manage the open ports with a firewall.
Symantec, their product, went crappy a long time ago. I had used it since it was Dr. Norton; and years ago it would have itself shutdown by exploits (i tolerated this)....then when i got anti-virus 2005 it would constantly shut down, corrput my (brand spanking new dell laptop), etc. I finally switched to CA ezTrust. Symantec has gone down hill.
And it is responsible, very responsible, of MS to offer anti-virus in their OS.
Maybe you think having anti-virus pre-built into MS is bloatware, but I find it to be useful and frankly it should have been incorporated years ago. Bloatware is putting in things that are useless, like AOL;)
Antivirus, spyware protection, firewall, internet browser (to name a few) --- these are things that should come in any OS product. In fact, they should be as mandatory as TCP/IP protocol.
If anything this will help those people who never buy anti-virus software...they just unpackage their computer, plug it in and turn it on...and then they get slammed with viruses.
How about modding the parent for what it really is, overrated. As time has proven (i.e. FireFox) it is not that MS is inept, it is that the most popular program has more people hacking it. People said that IE sucked, and FireFox was the answer...now we are finding out that FireFox has a lot of exploits available to discovered.
Be fair and act intelligent, instead of being a "Yes (wo)man" Complex programs are prone to have loopholes that people can exploit; it's a amazing in the first place to get a 300+ meg program to work, and do it with a ton of other programs.
Yea the whole genetics testing is a major part in gattaca shot through when people would give each other's gene samples to get dates. (or smuggle the gene samples).
Scary world..though I don't know. It would be interesting to find out of a potential g/f had family members (immediate) with cancer issues, mental issues, alcoholism, etc.
No, he had the claws, they just never poped out until they where coated with the adamantium during the Weapon X program
Just to go one step further in the dorkiness...since Wolverwine's past, before weapon X project is still in mystery, nobody really knows if he used his claws prior to having the adamantium laced. Since he lost his adamantium lacing, he went very feral - so he was probably just as feral prior to weapon x. They found him, probably, with tree hugging with a bunch of other wolverines:D
You should probably include all insurance companies'. Unless a companies policy specifically states they do not use genetic tests, they would if they could. Someone said HIPPAA prohibits this (let's hope). You mentioned these companies business model - what model is this that would make them not want to know what an insured client might get? IMHO, looking at it from the insurance companies prospective, i would want to know - even if I do not charger higher.
Ok:
1) Referring to the movie Gattica? Come on, can't we do better. How about not refer to a movie, or at least not one so lame.
2) While it is great IBM does this now. Two things to note: a) they can always change this policy b) imagine this scenario - the gov't allows genetic testing, and thusly discrimination - now it becomes an insurance companies policy "you want insurance, it is twice as expensive w/o a genetic test"...IBM may be forced to change their policy to avoid paying twice as much in insurance costs.
I am happy IBM is doing this and hopefully it will push Congress to pass anti-genetic discrimination laws (which they should). In the end, what Congress does will make the difference.
"own a copy".. ok. Why don't you talk about the real issue. I should be free to do anything I want, including recording things that my ears are hearing so that I can hear them again when I please. Imagine a future where you have record and playback equipment embedded into your head.. and now imagine that world hindered by DRM.
Ok then why don't you talk about the real world, not an imaginary world. You do not have recording equipment embedded in your head. And you do not have some right to make a copy of anything you hear so you can play it back at a whim. This is not a new trend. For as long as I can remember, people are prohibited from taking recording devices into live events (i.e. movies, plays, concerts, etc.) And where in the Constitution, or if you want to go higher Natural Law, does it say that denying you the ability to freely record someone elses music is a gauranteed right? It doesn't; however, the law's (copyright) do prohibit such actions. Not to mention, you making a recording of airwaves, instead of buying the CD, deny's someone (many someone's to be exact) income for a lot of hard work they did. Unless you are confused, a music label playing a song from a CD is doing so for the sole purpose of getting people to know about the band and their music and getting people to buy the CD.
I would wager it will allow China to more easily control what media enters their country. If people can only purchase this dvd player, and china keeps this format niche, then other countries are less likely to carry it - and less likely to have unwanted movies/music/more on it. Basically - control.
We live in a world where posession of electronics and printouts on the subway gets you hauled away by a full riot squad under suspicion of terrorism.
We really don't. I know you were trying to be facetious, but statements like this end up being quote's that people live by..
Yes, geeks should ALWAYS lie to the police, whether in the right or not.
I hope you are kidding here. Lying has a lot of bad ramifications, not to mention putting you in jail for obstructing an investigation; but worse, what if you were duped into helping a terrorist (it happens), and you lied because you know, you should "ALWAYS lie to the police"; now the information that could help them is not available. Not only did you put someone's life at risk, but you just made yourself an accomplice.
You've been ignoring reality for over 3 hours in over 15 posts. I actually feel confident that there isn't a single other person on the planet who would continue to entertain you.
I don't know, if I gave a stripper a couple hundred bucks I am sure she would entertain me.
You should be thanking me for wasting my time on you. It's actually a compliment.
Actually my discussion with you, up until the point you became a troll, was educational and I learned some stuff (on my own). Because I needed to find evidence to counter your points, I went and checked out some stuff I hadn't before, but I was vaguely aware of.
For the last 4 posts, at least, the only piece of evidence necessary is to recognize that a steady state pyramid scheme is still a pyramid scheme.
Until you read the links and comment on them, why are you continuing to persue this?
Sorry if I did not respond to all of the posts. So let me respond:
1) No longer speaking to the other guy who degenerated to a troll
2) OK they are a non-profit. Hopefully they gave all the money (minus expenses) to the organizations they represent. Given the greed of those organizations, I am sure they want every penny. Did they embezzel some money, I don't know and until otherwise proven they filled out a legal document stating they did what they were supposed to do
3) I agree we do not need to pay for their legal costs, but if they are going after people who did criminal acts they have a right to make a gov't attorney do the sueing. Just like in any criminal case, the gov't sends their attorneys against the defendent. I think that ONLY the gov't can prosecute in a criminal case.
4) I don't think we should kick in to cover their losses. However, if they are doing the work the gov't is supposed to be doing, they have a legitimate gripe. Imagine if someone mugged you, and the gov't didn't do anything leaving it up to you to gather evidence and get this guy prosecutted...wouldn't you feel a bit slighted?
5) I do live in the US. Philadelphia, PA to be more exact. In general, AFAIK, the loser only pays fee's if he is sued for the fee's but a judge has to agree to let the case happen. This is done so big companies don't beat someone in court (via expensive lawyers, who are paid millions) and then after beating the person in court saying "Hey our lawyers cost us 3 million, poor joe schmoe needs to cover that tab"...which obviously, poor joe schmoe can't.
6)As an exempt from taxes organization they are not making a profit either - so yea, a company that doesn't make a profit doesn't pay taxes. Even non-exempt companies (i.e. corporations) who do not make a profit pay no taxes. If you own a company, and the company makes $10,000 in a given year, but in the same year the company loses $10,000 (expenses) - the company pays no taxes. A non-profit pays no taxes even if they make a "profit" the reason is because they give this profit to the people they represent. Also, money you win in a lawsuit cannot be taxed.
7)Would you please specify what you didn't bring up
8)I disagree with the previous posters assumptions that the RIAA should ahve to pay the court fee's and not the gov't. By court fee's i mean the expenses of judge, bailiff, building, etc. They are allowed to go to court just like we are.
9) Again, I apologize, I was inundated with so many different posts I ignored a bunch. Up until a certain point (when he flamed) I enjoyed speaking with the other guy, but he became a troll. That and he tried to liken the gov't to the pyramid scheme.
Moral obligations != legal obligations. There is no good faith requirement in contracts. If you make a bad bargin, you are stuck with it. If it is a contract of adhesion and to enforce the contract would be considered unconscionable then the court, may, reform the contract. However, if the lawyers for the music biz are reduced to arguing unconscionability, then they have pretty much lost.
Actually, the law discusses moral obligations all the time. good faith clauses are, often times, placed in contracts - especially large contracts. If a company can prove that they, in good faith, did not try and circumvent another company they are ok. But if it is proven that the company tried circumventing the contract by neglecting pertinant information they can be held liable. These kinds of laws prevent people from doing just what we are talking about "Oh I didn't mention it so it never hit the contract and is therefore not valid."
I've accomplished my goal. Your repeated demonstrations of ignoring reality for the sole purpose of mindless argument were becoming tiresome.
Coming from a person who quickly, and repeatedly degenerates themselves to flaming; not to mention refuses to review even the simplist of evidence - yea that means a lot.
Who the fsck do you think you are? With your level of intellect, you don't have time in a thousand lives to read everything that I'd like to throw at people of your mentality.
1) I gave you a short link so we could have a better conversation, one which I was enjoying. The best part about democracy is we can talk about this, while people in such places as China cannot.
2) Due to your need to turn this into a flame, the conversation is now over.
OK, the "they pay more taxes" thing just doesn't fly when discussing a corporation. While the actual dollar amount they pay in taxes probably does far exceed the actual dollar amount I (or most other USAian's) pay, I'm willing to bet my next tax return that the percentage of tax they pay is less than mine. It's downright retarded to compare the dollar amounts of taxes paid for an individual to a company. If you want to go down this road, you should be looking at the percentage of taxes paid on the income of both. Since I can't afford a battery of tax lawyers to find a bunch of loopholes and other tax dodges, I'm sure I pay a higher percentage of my income then nearly any corporation in the country. And on that note...the RIAA isn't a corporation, it is a 501(c)6 tax-exempt entity. So yeah, I probably do indeed pay more taxes then they do, unless they have one hell of huge bakesale and don't give that money to the studios or use it for lobbying. I appreciate you trying to play devils advocate to the situation, but in this case, the tax argument should not be brought up.
Why doesn't it fly? You are saying it is your (and my) tax dollars at work, making it sound like they are leaching for free - when in reality they pay into the system. For example, let's say someone rear ends your car and you need to go to court to sue the person - you are spending my tax dollars (as well as the RIAA's) for a lawsuit. At least the RIAA's lawsuit has a noticeable effect on my life, and your life, but your's does not. So are we to say you are being silly for suing someone and wasting my tax dollars? No...it is your right to do so. I will not begrudge you utilizing governmental services in the way they are supposed to be used, but I ask in turn you give the same respect to everyone else.
As for percentages - the RIAA does a lot more then just pay taxes (double taxed since they are a corporation). They also employee people - who generate taxes, they buy things - which generate taxes. In the end, you cannot, in all fairness, begrudge them and use "this is my tax money" since they are also paying into the system.
How do you know they are utilizing loop-holes? They may have a very legitimate claim. Also, as for paying more taxes - no, indeed you do not pay anywhere NEAR the amount of taxes they do. You are also not aware of the percentage of taxes they pay. Do you even know what percentage of taxes you pay? I bet you would have to look at your last years income tax returns.
The tax argument was brought up ONLY because you mentioned it.
Pyramid schemes can very easily be turned into steady state systems.
Then we are not talking about a pyramid scheme. Again, read the link I posted to you. It talks about people who liken pyramid schemes to things such as social security and other governmental services. It does a good job, better then me, and is supported. It is a short read (took me all of 5 minutes). So, please, give it a read before responding. I like this discussion we are having, but I need it to be informed.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you can comment on it as Symantec and others have mentioned this several times. They often comment about how it takes them 6 months to even acknowledge that the hole exists.
I am not sure who others is, but I raise an eyebrow to a competitor neigh-saying it's competitor. I am not saying they are wrong either, but again, there is a difference of view from the outside then the inside.
Second, having the browser integrated into the OS has made many non-critical holes even more critical as a result. Not opinion when every security agency tells you to dumb IE because of it's threat to your OS.
As I have said before, having the browser integrated allows me to go online and get hte browser that I want to use...and guess what, I don't have to worry about IE anymore - that is unless Mozilla distributers are including viruses in their version of firefox...oh wait.
And I'm afraid I disagree. When your roof is leaking, a bucket is not a permanent fix. Yopu fix the roof so you don't need the bucket. Maybe in your house, you like having a whole bunch of buckets around but not me.
When my roof leaks, the bucket is a temporary fix until the roofer can come and fix it. Also, if my roof has a hole that is prone to a leak, but it doesn't rain until November - well I guess I won't know until november. So cut MS some slack here, they are trying - really they are. i.e. Giant Anti-spyware --- last I heard MS didn't invent this spyware.
Ladies and gentleman, this is the mindset Microsoft has fostered in the populace. "It's good to diaper your OS like a baby with layers of applications to protect your OS from the Internet." Spyware protection should ABSOLUTELY NOT be mandatory or part of the TCP/IP protocol (ha)--spyware takes advantages of flaws in Windows architectural design, and Microsoft should fix that design. Viruses rely on propagation, and systems like OS X simply don't have the mechanisms to allow for that--hence no viruses in five years. It doesn't even have a firewall enabled by default, because it keeps no open ports--an OS should NOT require a firewall to operate. It shouldn't keep open any port it doesn't need and shouldn't use any to begin with.
You really shouldn't generalize, one because in my case you are wrong, two because you haven't done (if you have please show this evidence) any qualified research into the sociological thought process of the people with regards to MS OS' and inclusive programs
See your opinion is that spyware is not absolutely mandatory, mine is different. It is an opinion, so state it as such, try not to make it sound a matter of fact. We bitched and moaned, and MS came up with a solution, now we still bitch and moan....
In related news: It has been determined that MS is not the source of viruses, but malicious hackers. Billy G rejoices in having his name cleared of creating viruses.
OS X did have a few exploits/viruses. MAC is also more expensive, and more proprietary - so I wouldn't boast it that much.
I'm afraid you don't know what are you talking about. Bloatware here means doing two antagonic things with the same package of expensive software while wasting your resources. The first thing is putting your system in danger with a poorly designed operating system. The second thing is trying to make it secure with more software instead of properly fixing the design from the beginning. It's like buying a sieve and some duct tape and expect it to behave like a big spoon :-)
/.? Well Would you point me to the /. dictionary please? Bloatware is oversized software. YOu know, solitaire that ranges about 50 megs, instead of under a meg. Bloatware is having a TON of extra stuff installed that are not needed but forced. Obviously there is some differing opinions on what is needed, but i guess you could use the MS card games (i.e. solitaire..i would say on a business laptop that would be bloatware).
Is that the official definition on
Classic FUD.
/. showing that in the past month or so FireFox had more security holes found the IE. Me saying that IE is better then FireFox based on that assumption is fud, but I didn't say which program was better. I have said I prefer FireFox though.
Firefox has vulnerabilties, yes, but they tend to be:
1) Patched Faster
2) Less critical
3) Patched completely
4) Openly admitted to
You wish it was fud. It is true, just because you don't like the truth does not mean it. There was an article, fairly recently, on
Oh and MS does admit to finding loopholes...generally after they fix it - and since they are closed source, I agree with this. Until something is fixed, why advertise it to people who would potentially use the exploit.
Wouldn't responsible be defined as fixing critical security holes that have been open for over 2 years
I cannot comment about this because I am not familiar with the internal working's of this issue and MS, and unless you work for MS (directly) neither are you.
Wouldn't responsible be not integrating the browser into the OS
That's a matter of opinion...While I use FireFox, I am happy that IE comes with my computer - you know, so that way I can get on the Internet for the first time and download me a copy of firefox.
Wouldn't responsible be not running all applications as root?
I'm pretty sure not all applications are run as root
Personally, I'd find it more responsible of them to fix inherent problems with the OS. The 'band-aid' of the antivirus system is nice but by no means is it a permanent fix
You, as well as everyone else here, knows that the band-aid method is the best method. With millions, and billions of lines of code it is impossible, even for a large organization like MS, to find every loophole...point in case, FireFox - as it is gaining more popular, more loopholes are being found - and what is Mozilla doing? They are band-aiding it up. See every company utilizes that method - it's called a patch, and they have been around for as far as I can remember, and I have been using computers all the way back since commodore 64 and 386 pc clone.
Your assuming MS is going to charge for this...they might give it for free like their anti-spyware program. Also, even if the do charge for it -- guess what, symantec also charges...either way I got to pay. And MS is not totally to blame for people exploiting it....and if you want to say MS sucks because it has exploits, then you better say that the Mozilla foundation sucks because it also has exploits.
A firewall should never be required to run any PC, because no PC should ever respond to a connection attempt that it wasn't designed/configured to handle. A firewall's sole purpose is to close ports that should not have been open in the first place.
I never said a fire wall should be required to run on a pc...i said it should come with an OS. I may want to have ports open, but still need to manage the open ports with a firewall.
Symantec, their product, went crappy a long time ago. I had used it since it was Dr. Norton; and years ago it would have itself shutdown by exploits (i tolerated this)....then when i got anti-virus 2005 it would constantly shut down, corrput my (brand spanking new dell laptop), etc. I finally switched to CA ezTrust. Symantec has gone down hill.
And it is responsible, very responsible, of MS to offer anti-virus in their OS.
Maybe you think having anti-virus pre-built into MS is bloatware, but I find it to be useful and frankly it should have been incorporated years ago. Bloatware is putting in things that are useless, like AOL ;)
Antivirus, spyware protection, firewall, internet browser (to name a few) --- these are things that should come in any OS product. In fact, they should be as mandatory as TCP/IP protocol.
If anything this will help those people who never buy anti-virus software...they just unpackage their computer, plug it in and turn it on...and then they get slammed with viruses.
How about modding the parent for what it really is, overrated. As time has proven (i.e. FireFox) it is not that MS is inept, it is that the most popular program has more people hacking it. People said that IE sucked, and FireFox was the answer...now we are finding out that FireFox has a lot of exploits available to discovered.
Be fair and act intelligent, instead of being a "Yes (wo)man" Complex programs are prone to have loopholes that people can exploit; it's a amazing in the first place to get a 300+ meg program to work, and do it with a ton of other programs.
Yea the whole genetics testing is a major part in gattaca shot through when people would give each other's gene samples to get dates. (or smuggle the gene samples).
Scary world..though I don't know. It would be interesting to find out of a potential g/f had family members (immediate) with cancer issues, mental issues, alcoholism, etc.
No, he had the claws, they just never poped out until they where coated with the adamantium during the Weapon X program
:D
Just to go one step further in the dorkiness...since Wolverwine's past, before weapon X project is still in mystery, nobody really knows if he used his claws prior to having the adamantium laced. Since he lost his adamantium lacing, he went very feral - so he was probably just as feral prior to weapon x. They found him, probably, with tree hugging with a bunch of other wolverines
You should probably include all insurance companies'. Unless a companies policy specifically states they do not use genetic tests, they would if they could. Someone said HIPPAA prohibits this (let's hope). You mentioned these companies business model - what model is this that would make them not want to know what an insured client might get? IMHO, looking at it from the insurance companies prospective, i would want to know - even if I do not charger higher.
Ok: 1) Referring to the movie Gattica? Come on, can't we do better. How about not refer to a movie, or at least not one so lame.
2) While it is great IBM does this now. Two things to note: a) they can always change this policy b) imagine this scenario - the gov't allows genetic testing, and thusly discrimination - now it becomes an insurance companies policy "you want insurance, it is twice as expensive w/o a genetic test"...IBM may be forced to change their policy to avoid paying twice as much in insurance costs.
I am happy IBM is doing this and hopefully it will push Congress to pass anti-genetic discrimination laws (which they should). In the end, what Congress does will make the difference.
"own a copy".. ok. Why don't you talk about the real issue. I should be free to do anything I want, including recording things that my ears are hearing so that I can hear them again when I please. Imagine a future where you have record and playback equipment embedded into your head.. and now imagine that world hindered by DRM.
Ok then why don't you talk about the real world, not an imaginary world. You do not have recording equipment embedded in your head. And you do not have some right to make a copy of anything you hear so you can play it back at a whim. This is not a new trend. For as long as I can remember, people are prohibited from taking recording devices into live events (i.e. movies, plays, concerts, etc.) And where in the Constitution, or if you want to go higher Natural Law, does it say that denying you the ability to freely record someone elses music is a gauranteed right? It doesn't; however, the law's (copyright) do prohibit such actions. Not to mention, you making a recording of airwaves, instead of buying the CD, deny's someone (many someone's to be exact) income for a lot of hard work they did. Unless you are confused, a music label playing a song from a CD is doing so for the sole purpose of getting people to know about the band and their music and getting people to buy the CD.
I would wager it will allow China to more easily control what media enters their country. If people can only purchase this dvd player, and china keeps this format niche, then other countries are less likely to carry it - and less likely to have unwanted movies/music/more on it. Basically - control.
We live in a world where posession of electronics and printouts on the subway gets you hauled away by a full riot squad under suspicion of terrorism.
We really don't. I know you were trying to be facetious, but statements like this end up being quote's that people live by..
Yes, geeks should ALWAYS lie to the police, whether in the right or not.
I hope you are kidding here. Lying has a lot of bad ramifications, not to mention putting you in jail for obstructing an investigation; but worse, what if you were duped into helping a terrorist (it happens), and you lied because you know, you should "ALWAYS lie to the police"; now the information that could help them is not available. Not only did you put someone's life at risk, but you just made yourself an accomplice.
You've been ignoring reality for over 3 hours in over 15 posts. I actually feel confident that there isn't a single other person on the planet who would continue to entertain you.
I don't know, if I gave a stripper a couple hundred bucks I am sure she would entertain me.
You should be thanking me for wasting my time on you. It's actually a compliment.
Actually my discussion with you, up until the point you became a troll, was educational and I learned some stuff (on my own). Because I needed to find evidence to counter your points, I went and checked out some stuff I hadn't before, but I was vaguely aware of.
For the last 4 posts, at least, the only piece of evidence necessary is to recognize that a steady state pyramid scheme is still a pyramid scheme.
Until you read the links and comment on them, why are you continuing to persue this?
Sorry if I did not respond to all of the posts. So let me respond:
1) No longer speaking to the other guy who degenerated to a troll
2) OK they are a non-profit. Hopefully they gave all the money (minus expenses) to the organizations they represent. Given the greed of those organizations, I am sure they want every penny. Did they embezzel some money, I don't know and until otherwise proven they filled out a legal document stating they did what they were supposed to do
3) I agree we do not need to pay for their legal costs, but if they are going after people who did criminal acts they have a right to make a gov't attorney do the sueing. Just like in any criminal case, the gov't sends their attorneys against the defendent. I think that ONLY the gov't can prosecute in a criminal case.
4) I don't think we should kick in to cover their losses. However, if they are doing the work the gov't is supposed to be doing, they have a legitimate gripe. Imagine if someone mugged you, and the gov't didn't do anything leaving it up to you to gather evidence and get this guy prosecutted...wouldn't you feel a bit slighted?
5) I do live in the US. Philadelphia, PA to be more exact. In general, AFAIK, the loser only pays fee's if he is sued for the fee's but a judge has to agree to let the case happen. This is done so big companies don't beat someone in court (via expensive lawyers, who are paid millions) and then after beating the person in court saying "Hey our lawyers cost us 3 million, poor joe schmoe needs to cover that tab"...which obviously, poor joe schmoe can't.
6)As an exempt from taxes organization they are not making a profit either - so yea, a company that doesn't make a profit doesn't pay taxes. Even non-exempt companies (i.e. corporations) who do not make a profit pay no taxes. If you own a company, and the company makes $10,000 in a given year, but in the same year the company loses $10,000 (expenses) - the company pays no taxes. A non-profit pays no taxes even if they make a "profit" the reason is because they give this profit to the people they represent. Also, money you win in a lawsuit cannot be taxed.
7)Would you please specify what you didn't bring up
8)I disagree with the previous posters assumptions that the RIAA should ahve to pay the court fee's and not the gov't. By court fee's i mean the expenses of judge, bailiff, building, etc. They are allowed to go to court just like we are.
9) Again, I apologize, I was inundated with so many different posts I ignored a bunch. Up until a certain point (when he flamed) I enjoyed speaking with the other guy, but he became a troll. That and he tried to liken the gov't to the pyramid scheme.
Moral obligations != legal obligations. There is no good faith requirement in contracts. If you make a bad bargin, you are stuck with it. If it is a contract of adhesion and to enforce the contract would be considered unconscionable then the court, may, reform the contract. However, if the lawyers for the music biz are reduced to arguing unconscionability, then they have pretty much lost.
Actually, the law discusses moral obligations all the time. good faith clauses are, often times, placed in contracts - especially large contracts. If a company can prove that they, in good faith, did not try and circumvent another company they are ok. But if it is proven that the company tried circumventing the contract by neglecting pertinant information they can be held liable. These kinds of laws prevent people from doing just what we are talking about "Oh I didn't mention it so it never hit the contract and is therefore not valid."
I've accomplished my goal. Your repeated demonstrations of ignoring reality for the sole purpose of mindless argument were becoming tiresome.
Coming from a person who quickly, and repeatedly degenerates themselves to flaming; not to mention refuses to review even the simplist of evidence - yea that means a lot.
Who the fsck do you think you are? With your level of intellect, you don't have time in a thousand lives to read everything that I'd like to throw at people of your mentality.
1) I gave you a short link so we could have a better conversation, one which I was enjoying. The best part about democracy is we can talk about this, while people in such places as China cannot. 2) Due to your need to turn this into a flame, the conversation is now over.
OK, the "they pay more taxes" thing just doesn't fly when discussing a corporation. While the actual dollar amount they pay in taxes probably does far exceed the actual dollar amount I (or most other USAian's) pay, I'm willing to bet my next tax return that the percentage of tax they pay is less than mine. It's downright retarded to compare the dollar amounts of taxes paid for an individual to a company. If you want to go down this road, you should be looking at the percentage of taxes paid on the income of both. Since I can't afford a battery of tax lawyers to find a bunch of loopholes and other tax dodges, I'm sure I pay a higher percentage of my income then nearly any corporation in the country. And on that note...the RIAA isn't a corporation, it is a 501(c)6 tax-exempt entity. So yeah, I probably do indeed pay more taxes then they do, unless they have one hell of huge bakesale and don't give that money to the studios or use it for lobbying. I appreciate you trying to play devils advocate to the situation, but in this case, the tax argument should not be brought up.
Why doesn't it fly? You are saying it is your (and my) tax dollars at work, making it sound like they are leaching for free - when in reality they pay into the system. For example, let's say someone rear ends your car and you need to go to court to sue the person - you are spending my tax dollars (as well as the RIAA's) for a lawsuit. At least the RIAA's lawsuit has a noticeable effect on my life, and your life, but your's does not. So are we to say you are being silly for suing someone and wasting my tax dollars? No...it is your right to do so. I will not begrudge you utilizing governmental services in the way they are supposed to be used, but I ask in turn you give the same respect to everyone else.
As for percentages - the RIAA does a lot more then just pay taxes (double taxed since they are a corporation). They also employee people - who generate taxes, they buy things - which generate taxes. In the end, you cannot, in all fairness, begrudge them and use "this is my tax money" since they are also paying into the system.
How do you know they are utilizing loop-holes? They may have a very legitimate claim. Also, as for paying more taxes - no, indeed you do not pay anywhere NEAR the amount of taxes they do. You are also not aware of the percentage of taxes they pay. Do you even know what percentage of taxes you pay? I bet you would have to look at your last years income tax returns.
The tax argument was brought up ONLY because you mentioned it.
Pyramid schemes can very easily be turned into steady state systems.
Then we are not talking about a pyramid scheme. Again, read the link I posted to you. It talks about people who liken pyramid schemes to things such as social security and other governmental services. It does a good job, better then me, and is supported. It is a short read (took me all of 5 minutes). So, please, give it a read before responding. I like this discussion we are having, but I need it to be informed.
Pyramid Scheme
Discusses Pyramid Schemes and Social Security
Nice argument, you tool
My g/f agree's with you, I am a tool. But she enjoy's it more then you do.