What do you call a pyramid scheme was has evolved into a steady state system of continually siphoning money from lower levels while returning the minimum amount possible?
Again, you are not following the definition of a pyramid scheme. The pyramid scheme, at it's most basic, says that you will put X dollars into the system, so you will receive Y dollars in the future. Where Y>X. Also, you keep changing what your pyramid scheme is, so it is no longer a pyramid scheme. It is like saying "What do you call a car that has 10, huge wheels, a trailer, a two person front cab, can carry twenty tons, and has a special drivers license requirement?" Well, that isn't a car anymore, thats a truck. It's a silly argument.
So you are continually going around in circles with me trying to give you other answers, and I realize the answer you are trying to get me to say! Your answer is nonsensical, limited in sight at it's best, but in reality wrong. So if we can't agree, and all you are going to ask me is to rename the pyramid scheme (which the answer you are looking for is wrong), we can stop the argument right here. Did you read the link I posted to you?
Since we are arguing the same topic in two different threads, I am stopping the other thread (by not responding).
Using your exceptional powers of reasoning, can you think of a way to turn a single use pyramid scheme into a steady state system constantly generating the maximum amount of revenue with the minimum amount of effort?
Someday... just someday...
Except that is not the basis of how the pyramid scheme works. The people at the top are not using the money to generate new money, they are taking it and pocketing it for themselves, and then usually disappearing. If you want to keep changing the way it works, it is no longer a pyramid scheme. Here go to Here and read about it. The key thing to look for, right at the top is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered
The gov't is sustainable, and it does continue to reinvest and does continue to provide a service to the people who pay into it. The people are promised they will make more money then what they paid to get in. The gov't does not make any such promises. At no point did the gov't tell me that if I pay, in my lifetime, 10 million in taxes that I will receive 50 million.
If the RIAA were composed of 12-year olds maybe I could understand that they didn't know what they were signing.
Maybe that explains it...
Or maybe, just maybe, after they ordered a specific item, they got something else. Maybe, both parties have a responsibility...yes I am quite sure I read somewhere about moral responsibility and full disclosure.
1/8" stereo audio jacks are not some new uber-leet ultra-haxor way of recording content.
We are talking about mp3 players pre-built with the radio units.
You brought up taxes. It is what it is. Sorry if you don't agree. You're wrong
Actually I am not. The pyramid scheme, is a scheme, because the person who starts it (potentially the two people below him) make the money, while the people at the bottom get nothing. The people who started that individual Pyramid did not put money into the system. It is so small it doesn't work. It is like me trying to insure 10 people. Insurance works on the process that a company has SO MANY clients, that a few getting injured will not be an issue. Also, the money is invested and reinvested to generate more money so the people at the "bottom" will get protection if they need it. The Pyramid Scheme does not offer such a protection - AT ALL!
Everyone pays into the gov't. Even our founding fathers paid taxes. The person who starts the pyramid (and again a few people below him, probably his friends) did not pay anything.
The government is not a pyramid scheme because the money you are paying goes into many services - most of which you realize now. You are not promised to be given money when you get to the top, you are given services immediately...hell you receive these services before you even start to pay taxes. Roads, public services (such as public schools), police, military, free medicine, etc. I know you want to base your argument around social security, it is a red herring. There are many services of the gov't you pay into you may never realize. For example, you pay into welfare, and you may never sit on welfare and benefit from it. You pay into this system because it is insurance in case you happen to suffer and need welfare. You pay into this system because of all the benefits you receive from the government - which other people like yourself - have paid into it, before and after you. This is nothing like the Pyramid Scheme which is about giving money to the people at the top, and leaving everyone else screwed.
In case you do not think you are benefitting from your taxes - drive to your local police station, PAL organization, military installation. Oh and when you drive there, remember, your car is enjoying that nice gov't built road. When you use your microwave, remember that microwave technology was invented by NASA who operates on tax dollars. The flame retardent material that firefighters use comes from technology NASA developed to help protect the space modules. When the firefighters save your burning house (god forbid it happen's) you will be thanking your tax dollars.
Yea you can try and equate our gov't taxes to the Pyramid Scheme, but then you just lowered everyone's respect of your opinion as a valid opinion.
If it was a concern then it should have. If it doesn't then it shouldn't suddenly be a problem now.
Do you always whine about what you ate for breakfast at lunchtime?
And again, how do you know it wasn't. I only whine about what I ate for breakfast (at lunchtime) when I find out that what I ordered wasn't what I received, and what I received is causing me diarrhea
If they didn't then they're so inept that shouldn't warrant any extra help from the taxpayers. If they did, and signed the agreement anyway (the agreements have been signed), then they made their decision back then.
Because they need to plan and consider each and every possible avenue someone might take? Right...This is technology utilized in a new fashion; the satellite companies should have given full disclosure. Thats why there is such a thing as good-faith.
I asked you to consider the basic structure of a pyramid scheme. You demonstrate that you have no conceptual understanding nor desire to learn. I will continue to respond to your ridiculous posts at 1.
The pyramid scheme? You are trying to equate our government to the pyramid scheme. Alright, first all the original people of the pyramid scheme (our government) are dead - they have also paid into the system themselves. Second you are a member of the pyramid scheme - you are paying and benefiting from this scheme. Third the RIAA is paying WAY MORE then you, and thusly should benefit more then you. If you recall on the pyramid there are many pyramids, some for small change, some for big bucks. So your pyramid is based on (just guessing) $5000 in taxes paid per year. The RIAA's pyramid is based on (again guessing) 1 million+ per year. Unfortunately for the RIAA, they are stuck in the same pyramid as you. They are paying more then you, and getting the same as you in return. Actually, since they are a corporation they get double taxed.
The pyramid scheme has NOTHING to do with this conversation, it is why I chose to ignore it in the first place. When you want to give an analogy in an online forum, where conversations are not synchronous, then give your analogy in full, not with a statement like "consider XYZ," and refusing to give any supporting information.
If they were then the argument is over. They agreed to it back then. What's the problem now?
How do you know it covered or didn't cover recording devices?
It wasn't a corporate secret that these things would have 1/8" stereo audio jacks. If there was a problem with potential recording it should've been addressed at the agreement signing time.
And again, do you have the contract - do you know if it was or was not addressed? That is why they are taking legal action.
Also, even if it was not mentioned. Let's say the contract was signed two years ago...If the RIAA can prove that the satellite companies planned - BEFORE that two years ago - recording devices into their units they can sue for not disclosing this information. Also, even if it wasn't mentioned in the contract - this new feature (which is a dramatic function enhancement) can cause the old contract to be invalidated or renegotiated.
but either way, for you or me to talk about the contract without seeing the contract and having a good grasp of it is futile.
Actually, the right to record off the radio for personal, non-commercial uses, is protected as fair use.
And the RIAA is not sueing the individual owner of these satellite radio/mp3 players - they are going after a company that is producing these devices...a company that has a contract with members of the RIAA.
Really? How much did the radios station pay the public for taking up a HUGE swatch of the EM band? Free, you say? So what are we getting in return then?
The public does not own the airwaves, the government does - there is a difference. But it gives a lot of people a warm fuzzy feeling to hear that the airwaves are public.
The radio stations are also under some heavy restrictions. They need to do emergency braodcasts at the drop of a hat, they need to give time every hour (and i think temperature). There are many things the radio companies HAVE to give to the public in their broadcasts.
Then again, you are not getting charged anything - but the radio companies are generatting tax revenue, promoting local and non-local bands which make those bands money, which generates tax revenue. They are making jobs. And as for payment - they run a lot of contests, which gets people money and prizes.
The radio companies do pay the government to have radio operating licenses. So they are paying.
You cannot oversimplify this.
You are allowed to own a ham radio --- how much are you paying?
Who signed the agreements allowing XM/Sirius to make public broadcast of what would otherwise be CDs pressed for personal use only? Whoever signed that contract is the only person with the authority to be raising questions about the recording security of the hardware.
If the RIAA wasn't involved with those agreements, then the RIAA has absolutely no business shouting about their terms.
No I am sure anyone can raise questions about recording security of the hardware. Yup, yea I am pretty sure the Constitution gives US citizens that protection.
Why would you assume the RIAA was not involved in those agreements? And you do realize the RIAA represents music labels - so they may have been contracted by the music labels to do the fighting - so they can argue it.
You still, totally, ignored my statement that the satellite radio companies did not give full disclosure - and you yourself said the satellite radio companies probably were planning this for two years.
Radio broadcasts have always been free to listen, but not to copy. It is advertisement for the music labels, in the hope you will like the song and buy the CD...not that you will copy the music.
And maybe, before the recording labels signed the agreements to allow for broadcast use of their product, they should have asked,"What of the recording security of the hardware which you will use?"
Are you so sure they didn't? Do you know what happend in those meetings, I sure don't. Have you seen the contract? I sure haven't. Don't assume. Also, in all honesty, when it comes to contract there is a moral obligation of a company to disclose any plans that might be deal breakers - and it is not that hard to figure out that satellite companies coming out with mp3 devices in their receivers would be a deal breaker. Let's be a little bit fair here, and not be so biased.
These things don't happen overnight. XM/Sirius must've been in the works at least 2 years before their products hit store shelves.
Absolutely correct, and since they knew about this for two years they should have disclosed it to the RIAA. I am sure they have heard about the RIAA getting pissy at people copying the music without authorization and then sueing them.
And they get way more back. You have studied the basic functionality of a pyramid scheme, haven't you? The people at the top always appear to pay more
Their tax returns, the rebate check they get may be higher then what you get...but they are still paying more taxes. Actually, a business that uses a decent CPA (we can assume the music labels have decent CPA's) can calculate the amount of taxes they need to pay fairly accurately. You argument is invalid - they are putting more into the tax revenue stream, and more into the system (purchasing supplies, hiring employees, contracters, etc) then you are - BY FAR!
Other way around. How the fsck could the big record labels not know in advance what hardware was going to be used? If they had a problem with the recording security of the hardware they could have refused to grant the service broadcast rights for their music.
No he had it right his way, you are just being anti-RIAA just because they are the RIAA. The RIAA does not know what the internal plans of the satellite radio companies are. As I told you before, the satellite radio companies should have been forthcoming.
And again, as for the tax dollars --- everyone is allowed to have their day in court, and if you are worried about tax dollars - you should be happy to realize that the RIAA puts tax dollars into the system - more then you - the RIAA employees people who put money into the system - more then you. The RIAA is paying for the overpriced attorneys - not your tax money.
As for the lawsuit, it will only hit court if both parties cannot come to an agreement - which if you plan on blaming anyone it should be both sides
they didn't bother to ask about the hardware before signing the licensing deals it shouldn't be up to my tax dollars to go back and figure it out for them
Are you sure they didn't mention, somewhere, that they frown on pirating. The contract may not explicity state everything they CAN'T do, but maybe what they can do. Maybe it should have fallen on the shoulderes of the satellite radio companies to be honest and disclose their plans. The recording devices didn't just magically appear one day w/o warning, they new about it for months if not years in advance.
As for your tax dollars at work - everyone gets their day in court - it is their right, just like it is your right. They pay taxes, just like you do...ummm scratch that, they pay WAY MORE taxes then you do.
Yea radio is nice, but me listening to the radio does not give me the right to own a copy of the music. So I can understand why the RIAA will want to go after satellite radio to have them remove these mp3 capabilities. Some people will say "but we have had tape decks in radio's for years" - yes but the quality is different. A tape copy of radio is a far cry from a digital copy.
Just because we do not like the RIAA does not make them wrong each and every single time.
By freely I mean "out of their physical control". If you had to enter a music booth to listen to music and they had people to pay you down for tape recorders, then their business would be no different to any other business, where you have to enter someone's shop to buy their goods. If bakers sold their bread like muscians try to sell their music, they'd get up at dawn, bake the bread and then leave it in the market square with a sign that says "bakers must be paid before bread can be eaten". Everyone would laugh at the bakers for being so stupid and eat their bread without paying for it.. and that's the situation muscians are in. So what should we do? Setting up a quasi-official police force to roam from house to house ensuring that no-one is eating bread they havn't paid for, or put the burden of ensuring the bakers get paid back where it belongs, on the bakers sholders?
That's a ridiculous argument to say the least, truely, absolutely ridiculous. The fact that sound can escape (duh) should not have even entered this conversation. The fact radio stations pay to play music so you can hear it - for free - does not give you the right to turn around and say "well since i heard it, i must be entitled to own a copy of it". People do not need to enter booths to hear the music in solitude to so the companies can get some protection...
This isn't the case when it comes to music/movies/software creators. They make what they create freely available and then demand payment without entering into a contract with anyone
Would you please explain to me where a company makes the music/movie/software free. I am pretty sure, in fact damned sure, that at the start of the movie/music/software it talks about copyright infringement, usually putting up saying the FBI prosecutes up to X amount of years in jail and X dollars per instance.
So I would like to know where these things are made Freely.... Also, where does "made freely" state there cannot be stipulations? My company allows demo's of our software for free to potential clients - but it comes with certain restrictions - including non-distribution clauses.
I download anything I damned well please, and thanks to the No Electronic Thieft Act I can download "$2000 worth" of content in a six month period and be perfectly legal.
Would you please show me a link to this act? I can't imagine a law that says "It's ok to steal, but as long as you are stealing under X amount of dollars." Cause if they have that for electronic theft, I am wondering why they don't have that for shoplifting "What I can steal $2000 worth of software, but I can't shoplift a Snickers bar???!!!"
Without reading the article, I assume the 14 year old girl was the one who did the pirating? So are minors to be excused from breaking the law now? She is 14 years old, smart enough to pirate and she probably knows about pirating laws (not the specifics, but that pirating is not allowed). It doesn't matter that we don't like the RIAA, they still have a legal right to sue. They sue the daughter, but since she is a minor the parents will take the hit --- such is the price of parenthood.
The game is set on the jungle continent of Xen'drik, and as a result some of the most interesting Eberron-specific elements are far to the north on another continent
Yes and this will be the add-on "City of Daggers - Sharn"
I'm a law student that has clerked for a federal judge. *I* beg to differ.
You can keep begging all you like, you still haven't proved a point. Until you go from being a lawyer, to being a judge, you have no clue what the difference is.
Um, no. The US Supreme Court is a court of limited appellate jurisdiction. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court outline the kind of disputes they will take in all but the most exceptional circumstances - I practically wrote the Rule verbatim.
Well duh, I didn't feel like writing the obvious - that the case has to be brought to them. Any case that is brought to the supreme court can be heard by the surpreme court if they so desire to do so. That help?
Secondly, appellate courts (and especially the Supreme Court) do not review factual findings, and the Supreme Court has never taken a case raised solely on a point of procedural error. It's not what they do.
They still have to understand the process. Yes they find things that are broken - how a case was handeled, and an improper ruling was given - but they do need to know the case. They need to know the facts - you can't just break it down into it's components and ignore it.
The Supreme court may have never taken such a case, but that does not mean they can't.
As a scotus, she will need to know the in's and out's of the law
Which as a lawyer she is more than qualified for.
Good god man...why in the hell would you only take a snippit of what I said and ignore the rest (ther pertinent part), which said she will need EXPERIENCE as a judge, which she has NONE of.
She will also not need to know the intricacies of the Federal Rules, which she no doubt knows in any case as a trial lawyer, maybe better than most federal judges.
I beg to differ.
The Supreme Court doesn't take cases on trivial points of procedure. They take cases to resolve 1. conflicts in constitutional or federal statutory interpretation among the federal circuits, 2. interpretations of federal statutory or constitutional law by state courts, or 3. issues of broad and far reaching constitutional concern. Ie - "the big picture". You don't have to have a trial or appellate court judge background to evaluate those issues.
You are wrong here...The Supreme Court takes whatever case they want to take, and it can be as trivial as they fancy. And the fact that they can do this requires that they are familiar with federal law procedures so they can better understand how the lower courts came up with their decision. DUH! How can you overrule or confirm a court decision without understanding the process it used to get there.
It was interesting, last night on Larry King, he had Judge Judy (which was an actual family court judge, and is a small claims court judge, her tv show). I didn't see the entire interview, but the parts I did see was not about the supreme court confirmations....she mentioned how it takes time for a new judge to get accustomed to the chair - everything from procedure, to how to handle situations. These are two completely different jobs, in the same industry.
Just because someone is experienced doesn't mean they will be any good.
Well duh. But, chances are, they will be better off then someoen w/o any experience. We are not talking about mid-level position - she is put into the highest position.
It is preferable to teach combat techniques to someone lacking experience to teaching combat techniques to someone with faulty experiences.
Not always, by FAR. For example, a person with a black belt in Karate, generally starts off with a yellow or orange belt in Tai Kwon Do...why you ask? Because they know the basics. Your statement is more acceptable for entry level jobs - I am pretty sure Supreme Court Justice is not an entry level job. If anything, it is an exit level job.
The point of my response was that prior experience as a judge is not integral to service or performance on the Supreme Court
Well I disagree. I think to do a job at it's highest level you need to have experience at some point before it. For example: Do you become a senior level programmer before you become a junior level programmer? Why is she becoming TEH judge before she was even a judge, even at the lowest level. Again, she might be phenonminal, but there is no past experience. Hell, go to monster.com, and look at jobs - they all want experience...there is a reason for that.
IMHO, points of view regarding certain specific issues are not the proper criteria to use when scrutinizing a proposed judge. Judges should be scrutinized regarding their judgment, their overall judicial philosophy, and their ability to apply the law as written; "issues" are appropriate criteria to use when assessing legislators and executives.
Actually points of view are very specific for judges. In the end, her experiences, her viewpoints, her judgement will have an effect on her rulings. Many of the rulings that come to the supreme court are ambiguous and require interpretation - and no matter what someone tells you, her personal beliefs will have a role in those interpretations. And how can we scrutinize her "judgement" when she has never been a judge; how can we scrutinze her overal "jdicial philosophy" when we are told - from the get-go- that most of what she did in the white house (if not all) will not be shown. - and especially since she has no judicial experience. And how can we scrutinize her "ability to apply the law as written" when she has NEVER applied the law as written.
Why are issues valid for legislators and executives but not judiciary members? In the end her decision becomes law - she in essence makes law.
My thought regarding Ms. Biers and what I believe her likely views on said issues
Are purely guesswork since right now we have little information on her. Even the senate judiciary committee are saying they have little to work with at this point, and they are in a position to get the most amount of information.
'm sorry. I assumed that since you have a strong opinion about this, that you'd have some data to back it up. That's what I get for assuming.
Are you implying that my opinion is wrong?
William Rehnquist
No really, you need to do better then that. My statement: "...someone with NO experience is just as good as someone WITH experience?" I am pretty sure that most people will agree that experience makes a lot of difference. Put it this way. Take two people. Each one graduated from the same school, same grade, same degree. Both have had their law degree for 20 years. The first was a lawyer for 10 years, and a judge for 10 years...the second was a lawyer for 20 years...you want to honestly say the second has better knowledge about being a judge then th first?
So, you are making it up, or just repeating something you heard. Let's see some facts!
Well obviously i am repeating something I heard. - It was on the news, at the time. And no i don't care to. I have better things, honestly, to do with my time. But I am sure if you care enough, you will look it up on google.
... So, of course, she must be immediately disqualified.
And I made this statement where? Thanks for coming out.
Oh, and just because it has been done in the past, does not make it the best possible course to take. Yea, she may potentially be a great justice, that does not mean she is the best - and taht does not mean she is qualified right now to enter this position. Could she learn it, yea if she got this position she has the rest of her life to learn how to do the job....but then, there are the first years where she does not have the EXPERIENCE.
PLUS, since she is not a judge, I have no idea how she would have ruled over different issues - something that is very important to the people.
So until you can argue on my assumption's, keep your squander to yourself. Just so you realize - my assumption's is her lack of EXPERIENCE & lack of proof as to how she will act with regards to certain issues.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you call a pyramid scheme was has evolved into a steady state system of continually siphoning money from lower levels while returning the minimum amount possible?
Again, you are not following the definition of a pyramid scheme. The pyramid scheme, at it's most basic, says that you will put X dollars into the system, so you will receive Y dollars in the future. Where Y>X. Also, you keep changing what your pyramid scheme is, so it is no longer a pyramid scheme. It is like saying "What do you call a car that has 10, huge wheels, a trailer, a two person front cab, can carry twenty tons, and has a special drivers license requirement?" Well, that isn't a car anymore, thats a truck. It's a silly argument.
So you are continually going around in circles with me trying to give you other answers, and I realize the answer you are trying to get me to say! Your answer is nonsensical, limited in sight at it's best, but in reality wrong. So if we can't agree, and all you are going to ask me is to rename the pyramid scheme (which the answer you are looking for is wrong), we can stop the argument right here. Did you read the link I posted to you?
Since we are arguing the same topic in two different threads, I am stopping the other thread (by not responding).
Using your exceptional powers of reasoning, can you think of a way to turn a single use pyramid scheme into a steady state system constantly generating the maximum amount of revenue with the minimum amount of effort? Someday... just someday...
Except that is not the basis of how the pyramid scheme works. The people at the top are not using the money to generate new money, they are taking it and pocketing it for themselves, and then usually disappearing. If you want to keep changing the way it works, it is no longer a pyramid scheme. Here go to Here and read about it. The key thing to look for, right at the top is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered
The gov't is sustainable, and it does continue to reinvest and does continue to provide a service to the people who pay into it. The people are promised they will make more money then what they paid to get in. The gov't does not make any such promises. At no point did the gov't tell me that if I pay, in my lifetime, 10 million in taxes that I will receive 50 million.
If the RIAA were composed of 12-year olds maybe I could understand that they didn't know what they were signing. Maybe that explains it...
Or maybe, just maybe, after they ordered a specific item, they got something else. Maybe, both parties have a responsibility...yes I am quite sure I read somewhere about moral responsibility and full disclosure.
1/8" stereo audio jacks are not some new uber-leet ultra-haxor way of recording content.
We are talking about mp3 players pre-built with the radio units.
You brought up taxes. It is what it is. Sorry if you don't agree. You're wrong
Actually I am not. The pyramid scheme, is a scheme, because the person who starts it (potentially the two people below him) make the money, while the people at the bottom get nothing. The people who started that individual Pyramid did not put money into the system. It is so small it doesn't work. It is like me trying to insure 10 people. Insurance works on the process that a company has SO MANY clients, that a few getting injured will not be an issue. Also, the money is invested and reinvested to generate more money so the people at the "bottom" will get protection if they need it. The Pyramid Scheme does not offer such a protection - AT ALL!
Everyone pays into the gov't. Even our founding fathers paid taxes. The person who starts the pyramid (and again a few people below him, probably his friends) did not pay anything.
The government is not a pyramid scheme because the money you are paying goes into many services - most of which you realize now. You are not promised to be given money when you get to the top, you are given services immediately...hell you receive these services before you even start to pay taxes. Roads, public services (such as public schools), police, military, free medicine, etc. I know you want to base your argument around social security, it is a red herring. There are many services of the gov't you pay into you may never realize. For example, you pay into welfare, and you may never sit on welfare and benefit from it. You pay into this system because it is insurance in case you happen to suffer and need welfare. You pay into this system because of all the benefits you receive from the government - which other people like yourself - have paid into it, before and after you. This is nothing like the Pyramid Scheme which is about giving money to the people at the top, and leaving everyone else screwed.
In case you do not think you are benefitting from your taxes - drive to your local police station, PAL organization, military installation. Oh and when you drive there, remember, your car is enjoying that nice gov't built road. When you use your microwave, remember that microwave technology was invented by NASA who operates on tax dollars. The flame retardent material that firefighters use comes from technology NASA developed to help protect the space modules. When the firefighters save your burning house (god forbid it happen's) you will be thanking your tax dollars.
Yea you can try and equate our gov't taxes to the Pyramid Scheme, but then you just lowered everyone's respect of your opinion as a valid opinion.
If it was a concern then it should have. If it doesn't then it shouldn't suddenly be a problem now. Do you always whine about what you ate for breakfast at lunchtime?
And again, how do you know it wasn't. I only whine about what I ate for breakfast (at lunchtime) when I find out that what I ordered wasn't what I received, and what I received is causing me diarrhea
If they didn't then they're so inept that shouldn't warrant any extra help from the taxpayers. If they did, and signed the agreement anyway (the agreements have been signed), then they made their decision back then.
Because they need to plan and consider each and every possible avenue someone might take? Right...This is technology utilized in a new fashion; the satellite companies should have given full disclosure. Thats why there is such a thing as good-faith.
I asked you to consider the basic structure of a pyramid scheme. You demonstrate that you have no conceptual understanding nor desire to learn. I will continue to respond to your ridiculous posts at 1.
The pyramid scheme? You are trying to equate our government to the pyramid scheme. Alright, first all the original people of the pyramid scheme (our government) are dead - they have also paid into the system themselves. Second you are a member of the pyramid scheme - you are paying and benefiting from this scheme. Third the RIAA is paying WAY MORE then you, and thusly should benefit more then you. If you recall on the pyramid there are many pyramids, some for small change, some for big bucks. So your pyramid is based on (just guessing) $5000 in taxes paid per year. The RIAA's pyramid is based on (again guessing) 1 million+ per year. Unfortunately for the RIAA, they are stuck in the same pyramid as you. They are paying more then you, and getting the same as you in return. Actually, since they are a corporation they get double taxed.
The pyramid scheme has NOTHING to do with this conversation, it is why I chose to ignore it in the first place. When you want to give an analogy in an online forum, where conversations are not synchronous, then give your analogy in full, not with a statement like "consider XYZ," and refusing to give any supporting information.
If they were then the argument is over. They agreed to it back then. What's the problem now?
How do you know it covered or didn't cover recording devices?
It wasn't a corporate secret that these things would have 1/8" stereo audio jacks. If there was a problem with potential recording it should've been addressed at the agreement signing time.
And again, do you have the contract - do you know if it was or was not addressed? That is why they are taking legal action.
Also, even if it was not mentioned. Let's say the contract was signed two years ago...If the RIAA can prove that the satellite companies planned - BEFORE that two years ago - recording devices into their units they can sue for not disclosing this information. Also, even if it wasn't mentioned in the contract - this new feature (which is a dramatic function enhancement) can cause the old contract to be invalidated or renegotiated.
but either way, for you or me to talk about the contract without seeing the contract and having a good grasp of it is futile.
Actually, the right to record off the radio for personal, non-commercial uses, is protected as fair use.
And the RIAA is not sueing the individual owner of these satellite radio/mp3 players - they are going after a company that is producing these devices...a company that has a contract with members of the RIAA.
Really? How much did the radios station pay the public for taking up a HUGE swatch of the EM band? Free, you say? So what are we getting in return then?
The public does not own the airwaves, the government does - there is a difference. But it gives a lot of people a warm fuzzy feeling to hear that the airwaves are public.
The radio stations are also under some heavy restrictions. They need to do emergency braodcasts at the drop of a hat, they need to give time every hour (and i think temperature). There are many things the radio companies HAVE to give to the public in their broadcasts.
Then again, you are not getting charged anything - but the radio companies are generatting tax revenue, promoting local and non-local bands which make those bands money, which generates tax revenue. They are making jobs. And as for payment - they run a lot of contests, which gets people money and prizes.
The radio companies do pay the government to have radio operating licenses. So they are paying.
You cannot oversimplify this.
You are allowed to own a ham radio --- how much are you paying?
Who signed the agreements allowing XM/Sirius to make public broadcast of what would otherwise be CDs pressed for personal use only? Whoever signed that contract is the only person with the authority to be raising questions about the recording security of the hardware. If the RIAA wasn't involved with those agreements, then the RIAA has absolutely no business shouting about their terms.
No I am sure anyone can raise questions about recording security of the hardware. Yup, yea I am pretty sure the Constitution gives US citizens that protection.
Why would you assume the RIAA was not involved in those agreements? And you do realize the RIAA represents music labels - so they may have been contracted by the music labels to do the fighting - so they can argue it.
You still, totally, ignored my statement that the satellite radio companies did not give full disclosure - and you yourself said the satellite radio companies probably were planning this for two years.
Radio broadcasts have always been free to listen, but not to copy. It is advertisement for the music labels, in the hope you will like the song and buy the CD...not that you will copy the music.
And maybe, before the recording labels signed the agreements to allow for broadcast use of their product, they should have asked,"What of the recording security of the hardware which you will use?"
Are you so sure they didn't? Do you know what happend in those meetings, I sure don't. Have you seen the contract? I sure haven't. Don't assume. Also, in all honesty, when it comes to contract there is a moral obligation of a company to disclose any plans that might be deal breakers - and it is not that hard to figure out that satellite companies coming out with mp3 devices in their receivers would be a deal breaker. Let's be a little bit fair here, and not be so biased.
These things don't happen overnight. XM/Sirius must've been in the works at least 2 years before their products hit store shelves.
Absolutely correct, and since they knew about this for two years they should have disclosed it to the RIAA. I am sure they have heard about the RIAA getting pissy at people copying the music without authorization and then sueing them.
And they get way more back. You have studied the basic functionality of a pyramid scheme, haven't you? The people at the top always appear to pay more
Their tax returns, the rebate check they get may be higher then what you get...but they are still paying more taxes. Actually, a business that uses a decent CPA (we can assume the music labels have decent CPA's) can calculate the amount of taxes they need to pay fairly accurately. You argument is invalid - they are putting more into the tax revenue stream, and more into the system (purchasing supplies, hiring employees, contracters, etc) then you are - BY FAR!
Other way around. How the fsck could the big record labels not know in advance what hardware was going to be used? If they had a problem with the recording security of the hardware they could have refused to grant the service broadcast rights for their music.
No he had it right his way, you are just being anti-RIAA just because they are the RIAA. The RIAA does not know what the internal plans of the satellite radio companies are. As I told you before, the satellite radio companies should have been forthcoming.
And again, as for the tax dollars --- everyone is allowed to have their day in court, and if you are worried about tax dollars - you should be happy to realize that the RIAA puts tax dollars into the system - more then you - the RIAA employees people who put money into the system - more then you. The RIAA is paying for the overpriced attorneys - not your tax money.
As for the lawsuit, it will only hit court if both parties cannot come to an agreement - which if you plan on blaming anyone it should be both sides
they didn't bother to ask about the hardware before signing the licensing deals it shouldn't be up to my tax dollars to go back and figure it out for them
Are you sure they didn't mention, somewhere, that they frown on pirating. The contract may not explicity state everything they CAN'T do, but maybe what they can do. Maybe it should have fallen on the shoulderes of the satellite radio companies to be honest and disclose their plans. The recording devices didn't just magically appear one day w/o warning, they new about it for months if not years in advance.
As for your tax dollars at work - everyone gets their day in court - it is their right, just like it is your right. They pay taxes, just like you do...ummm scratch that, they pay WAY MORE taxes then you do.
Yea radio is nice, but me listening to the radio does not give me the right to own a copy of the music. So I can understand why the RIAA will want to go after satellite radio to have them remove these mp3 capabilities. Some people will say "but we have had tape decks in radio's for years" - yes but the quality is different. A tape copy of radio is a far cry from a digital copy.
Just because we do not like the RIAA does not make them wrong each and every single time.
By freely I mean "out of their physical control". If you had to enter a music booth to listen to music and they had people to pay you down for tape recorders, then their business would be no different to any other business, where you have to enter someone's shop to buy their goods. If bakers sold their bread like muscians try to sell their music, they'd get up at dawn, bake the bread and then leave it in the market square with a sign that says "bakers must be paid before bread can be eaten". Everyone would laugh at the bakers for being so stupid and eat their bread without paying for it.. and that's the situation muscians are in. So what should we do? Setting up a quasi-official police force to roam from house to house ensuring that no-one is eating bread they havn't paid for, or put the burden of ensuring the bakers get paid back where it belongs, on the bakers sholders?
That's a ridiculous argument to say the least, truely, absolutely ridiculous. The fact that sound can escape (duh) should not have even entered this conversation. The fact radio stations pay to play music so you can hear it - for free - does not give you the right to turn around and say "well since i heard it, i must be entitled to own a copy of it". People do not need to enter booths to hear the music in solitude to so the companies can get some protection...
This isn't the case when it comes to music/movies/software creators. They make what they create freely available and then demand payment without entering into a contract with anyone
Would you please explain to me where a company makes the music/movie/software free. I am pretty sure, in fact damned sure, that at the start of the movie/music/software it talks about copyright infringement, usually putting up saying the FBI prosecutes up to X amount of years in jail and X dollars per instance.
So I would like to know where these things are made Freely.... Also, where does "made freely" state there cannot be stipulations? My company allows demo's of our software for free to potential clients - but it comes with certain restrictions - including non-distribution clauses.
I download anything I damned well please, and thanks to the No Electronic Thieft Act I can download "$2000 worth" of content in a six month period and be perfectly legal.
Would you please show me a link to this act? I can't imagine a law that says "It's ok to steal, but as long as you are stealing under X amount of dollars." Cause if they have that for electronic theft, I am wondering why they don't have that for shoplifting "What I can steal $2000 worth of software, but I can't shoplift a Snickers bar???!!!"
Without reading the article, I assume the 14 year old girl was the one who did the pirating? So are minors to be excused from breaking the law now? She is 14 years old, smart enough to pirate and she probably knows about pirating laws (not the specifics, but that pirating is not allowed). It doesn't matter that we don't like the RIAA, they still have a legal right to sue. They sue the daughter, but since she is a minor the parents will take the hit --- such is the price of parenthood.
The game is set on the jungle continent of Xen'drik, and as a result some of the most interesting Eberron-specific elements are far to the north on another continent
Yes and this will be the add-on "City of Daggers - Sharn"
I'm a law student that has clerked for a federal judge. *I* beg to differ.
You can keep begging all you like, you still haven't proved a point. Until you go from being a lawyer, to being a judge, you have no clue what the difference is. Um, no. The US Supreme Court is a court of limited appellate jurisdiction. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court outline the kind of disputes they will take in all but the most exceptional circumstances - I practically wrote the Rule verbatim.
Well duh, I didn't feel like writing the obvious - that the case has to be brought to them. Any case that is brought to the supreme court can be heard by the surpreme court if they so desire to do so. That help?
Secondly, appellate courts (and especially the Supreme Court) do not review factual findings, and the Supreme Court has never taken a case raised solely on a point of procedural error. It's not what they do.
They still have to understand the process. Yes they find things that are broken - how a case was handeled, and an improper ruling was given - but they do need to know the case. They need to know the facts - you can't just break it down into it's components and ignore it.
The Supreme court may have never taken such a case, but that does not mean they can't.
As a scotus, she will need to know the in's and out's of the law
Which as a lawyer she is more than qualified for.
Good god man...why in the hell would you only take a snippit of what I said and ignore the rest (ther pertinent part), which said she will need EXPERIENCE as a judge, which she has NONE of.
She will also not need to know the intricacies of the Federal Rules, which she no doubt knows in any case as a trial lawyer, maybe better than most federal judges.
I beg to differ.
The Supreme Court doesn't take cases on trivial points of procedure. They take cases to resolve 1. conflicts in constitutional or federal statutory interpretation among the federal circuits, 2. interpretations of federal statutory or constitutional law by state courts, or 3. issues of broad and far reaching constitutional concern. Ie - "the big picture". You don't have to have a trial or appellate court judge background to evaluate those issues.
You are wrong here...The Supreme Court takes whatever case they want to take, and it can be as trivial as they fancy. And the fact that they can do this requires that they are familiar with federal law procedures so they can better understand how the lower courts came up with their decision. DUH! How can you overrule or confirm a court decision without understanding the process it used to get there.
It was interesting, last night on Larry King, he had Judge Judy (which was an actual family court judge, and is a small claims court judge, her tv show). I didn't see the entire interview, but the parts I did see was not about the supreme court confirmations....she mentioned how it takes time for a new judge to get accustomed to the chair - everything from procedure, to how to handle situations. These are two completely different jobs, in the same industry.
Just because someone is experienced doesn't mean they will be any good.
Well duh. But, chances are, they will be better off then someoen w/o any experience. We are not talking about mid-level position - she is put into the highest position. It is preferable to teach combat techniques to someone lacking experience to teaching combat techniques to someone with faulty experiences.
Not always, by FAR. For example, a person with a black belt in Karate, generally starts off with a yellow or orange belt in Tai Kwon Do...why you ask? Because they know the basics. Your statement is more acceptable for entry level jobs - I am pretty sure Supreme Court Justice is not an entry level job. If anything, it is an exit level job.
The point of my response was that prior experience as a judge is not integral to service or performance on the Supreme Court
Well I disagree. I think to do a job at it's highest level you need to have experience at some point before it. For example: Do you become a senior level programmer before you become a junior level programmer? Why is she becoming TEH judge before she was even a judge, even at the lowest level. Again, she might be phenonminal, but there is no past experience. Hell, go to monster.com, and look at jobs - they all want experience...there is a reason for that.
IMHO, points of view regarding certain specific issues are not the proper criteria to use when scrutinizing a proposed judge. Judges should be scrutinized regarding their judgment, their overall judicial philosophy, and their ability to apply the law as written; "issues" are appropriate criteria to use when assessing legislators and executives.
Actually points of view are very specific for judges. In the end, her experiences, her viewpoints, her judgement will have an effect on her rulings. Many of the rulings that come to the supreme court are ambiguous and require interpretation - and no matter what someone tells you, her personal beliefs will have a role in those interpretations. And how can we scrutinize her "judgement" when she has never been a judge; how can we scrutinze her overal "jdicial philosophy" when we are told - from the get-go- that most of what she did in the white house (if not all) will not be shown. - and especially since she has no judicial experience. And how can we scrutinize her "ability to apply the law as written" when she has NEVER applied the law as written.
Why are issues valid for legislators and executives but not judiciary members? In the end her decision becomes law - she in essence makes law.
My thought regarding Ms. Biers and what I believe her likely views on said issues
Are purely guesswork since right now we have little information on her. Even the senate judiciary committee are saying they have little to work with at this point, and they are in a position to get the most amount of information.
'm sorry. I assumed that since you have a strong opinion about this, that you'd have some data to back it up. That's what I get for assuming.
Are you implying that my opinion is wrong? William Rehnquist
No really, you need to do better then that. My statement: "...someone with NO experience is just as good as someone WITH experience?" I am pretty sure that most people will agree that experience makes a lot of difference. Put it this way. Take two people. Each one graduated from the same school, same grade, same degree. Both have had their law degree for 20 years. The first was a lawyer for 10 years, and a judge for 10 years...the second was a lawyer for 20 years...you want to honestly say the second has better knowledge about being a judge then th first?
So, you are making it up, or just repeating something you heard. Let's see some facts!
Well obviously i am repeating something I heard. - It was on the news, at the time. And no i don't care to. I have better things, honestly, to do with my time. But I am sure if you care enough, you will look it up on google.
... So, of course, she must be immediately disqualified.
And I made this statement where? Thanks for coming out.
Oh, and just because it has been done in the past, does not make it the best possible course to take. Yea, she may potentially be a great justice, that does not mean she is the best - and taht does not mean she is qualified right now to enter this position. Could she learn it, yea if she got this position she has the rest of her life to learn how to do the job....but then, there are the first years where she does not have the EXPERIENCE.
PLUS, since she is not a judge, I have no idea how she would have ruled over different issues - something that is very important to the people.
So until you can argue on my assumption's, keep your squander to yourself. Just so you realize - my assumption's is her lack of EXPERIENCE & lack of proof as to how she will act with regards to certain issues.