Fine so be it, but it's up to the consumers to be upset that they aren't getting what they want on google, and if that's the case, they should vote with their feet. This isn't an issue to be handled in the courts.
These companies aren't concerned about amateur pharmaceutical enthusiasts cutting into their work. They are worried about spending 6 years with negative income to come up with this information and then having professional generic and competitive pharmaceutical companies being able to use that knowledge with no initial R&D cost. Street cred doesn't come close to being compensation for several billion dollars in research.
The intent most certainly does have bearing on the law. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter. Likewise, the intent of the pirate bay was to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted content, the attitude is simply used as evidence of intent. Mininova on the other hand appears to be trying to show that their attitude shows a different intent.
The implication that Clinton was drummed around because he was sleeping around is getting really old. The big issue wasn't the affair. The issue was that the POTUS committed perjury, a felony, in a case in which giving the correct testimony would have been relevant.
There would almost certainly have to be an intermediary service a la Paypal (I mean in the general aggregation sense, I have no idea of their capabilities for other currencies, etc). It would be incredibly expensive for all but the largest providers to maintain broad coverage of currencies/payment methods. Instead, it needs to be the business of a company to maintain this, and take a little off the top. That does mean that it's going to be more expensive to the end user, one way or another.
In general, that dollar is more likely to be spent and more immediately by the welfare mother, as the lower income levels tend to spend a higher percentage of their income. The counter argument is that the rich person who paid that dollar in taxes would have been more likely to invest and generate wealth with that dollar rather than spend it immediately. That dollar will still make it to another rich person who will likely invest spend his portion of the dollar and the cycle continues. The question is where that dollar is better spent, in the hands of the higher income people, or cycling through via the federal tax system to the lower income person.
Personal conflict of interest, which would be true if he had some personal or financial incentive. But simply having a position on an issue such as copyright doesn't indicate a conflict of interest in the same way that a murder suspect couldn't argue to have a mistrial because he knows that this judge has said before that murder is wrong. I don't know the full implications of this judges membership, but if he is a member of this organization as a matter of principle or belief in copyright, it doesn't necessarily indicate a conflict of interest.
In some defense, if he is a member of the organization not in a capacity of financial beneficiary of copyright, then it isn't quite so clear cut. If he firmly believes in copyright as a matter of law and principle, I don't think it's much different than a judge being a member of an organization lobbying for tougher murder penalties, etc. We wouldn't exclude him from murder trials. His judgment should come from interpreting the law. If he has failed terribly at that, then there are issues such as legislating from the bench that need to be discussed, but otherwise, this "conflict of interest" isn't nearly so glaring.
The problem isn't that they are merely a search engine. Intent is a big part of it, and TBP raison d'etre was to provide an engine for distributing copyrighted content.
In return, the users need to realize that the media and software industry not producing content in the right format or price range doesn't give the user the right to use the content for free. If one doesn't like the terms, it is within one's rights as a user not to purchase it.
If you wouldn't mind satiating my curiosity. In what format do you take notes? Do you keep the original copy of the paper? Do you link, in some way, a specific point or note to a specific place in the paper?
I'm just digging into my masters and haven't had the best text processing skills, so I'm interested in how others do it.
I work with electronic medical records and we have found Fujitsu scanners to be top-notch. Fast, reliable, and generally affordable. We've also used some of the larger production scanners from Kodak and Bowe Bell and Howell. They are solid scanners, but are more expensive and haven't taken the beating we tend to give the Fujitsus.
We just replaced an old 3097 with the 6130 and are waiting to hear how it holds up. Note, most of these scanners are deployed to remote scan areas in the hospital where it is the responsibility of the users to handle maintenance, which means these scanners aren't cleaned and don't have rollers replaced. These older models have gone years with almost no maintenance.
I need to go find the study, but it was something to the effect of non-caffeine drinkers having roughly equal productivity as caffeine drinkers so long as the caffeine drinkers had their fix. If they didn't, they were decidedly less productive.
People who weren't regular coffee drinkers did get a boost, but the boost goes away as the body become accustomed to it. Drink it if you like it, don't don't if you don't, but definitely realize that it's a drug and some self-control should be employed.
I'm betting it's more of a scare tactic for other films. MPAA is using the press to remind everyone that they have the backing of the FBI and forensic fingerprinting just in case this happens again.
IANAL as well, but I believe that law protects a company from being forced to divulge trade secrets and allows them to impose contract obligations on people who know that secret (employees). I don't believe it is a blanket statement that says anything someone wants to keep secret is protected by law. That is to say, unless you have a contract or agreement protecting that secret the responsibility is on the keeper of the secret to keep it...well...secret.
I'm not terribly familiar with the Mac OSX transition, but Microsoft did a small step in that direction and it's come back to bite them. They have incredible inertia and customers who aren't nearly as forgiving (it's hard to criticize something when you've been so zealous about it). We can argue about how well it was implemented (poorly) but Microsoft tried to take a step in breaking down some of the issues with old code and broke or made inconvenient many packages that were written with poor privilege escalation. Customers were furious.
Jukebox style implying the users can choose the songs they want to listen to specifically. Not genre (radio style) and no skip ability (Pandora style).
Except for one caveat. Assuming you don't have free will, but instead that you perceive your actions to be free will by an illusion in your brain, and further that your actions and choices are predetermined from a finite set of experiences and interactions in your brain, then having the experience or understanding of the absence of free will as an axiom in your brain is another element by which decisions are arrived at.
In short, even if you don't have free will, believing that you don't have free will definitely affect the decisions made by the not-free brain.
I don't think you can begin to attribute the entire drop in sales or come close to the losses claimed by the music industry. The points you make are correct. But I also don't think that the loss in sales from copying of music is as insignificant as it's made out to be by this community.
More people, smaller payments. There was a music industry exec talking about a service that allows people to listen to music jukebox style either for free with ads or with a subscription sans ads. He was encouraging this model because, while the payout per song was lower, it encouraged people to listen more often, and also encouraged them to listen to new music more often in stead of listening to an album, purchased once, repeatedly. This is something that should have been embraced a long time ago.
What about a DDoS on a major stock exchange for example? Or someone brings down bus/train/air traffic control systems? Before anyone comes in with "The US ATC system is protected by..." that isn't the point. The point is, there are many critical systems that could cause great economic and possibly physical harm if successfully attacked. There are definite problems that can be had by this.
Evaluations can't compare an inner city school test scores to a suburban test scores as an absolute test of success. In stead you look at long term success rates across classes within the same school, and possibly to other schools in similar situations.
For example, a student takes a core competency test prior to being enrolled in first grade and takes tests at a fixed interval measuring success in competencies throughout the school career. Teachers that show regular scores that are within a certain range of teachers in similar situations over an average period of time will be rewarded as such. It would be foolish to arbitrarily compare them to everyone else because they are in a separate situation. It would be wonderful if they could raise scores to match more affluent schools, but it can't be, at least immediately, expected.
That said, I think that we have this exact problem with the current situation. There are some great inner city school teachers, but I think there is also a drain out of good school teachers to the higher paying schools leaving some of the under performing teachers which perpetuates these issues. Perhaps with merit pay there will be an incentive for highly skilled teachers to see those schools as an opportunity where over-performing schools have maxed out.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine so be it, but it's up to the consumers to be upset that they aren't getting what they want on google, and if that's the case, they should vote with their feet. This isn't an issue to be handled in the courts.
These companies aren't concerned about amateur pharmaceutical enthusiasts cutting into their work. They are worried about spending 6 years with negative income to come up with this information and then having professional generic and competitive pharmaceutical companies being able to use that knowledge with no initial R&D cost. Street cred doesn't come close to being compensation for several billion dollars in research.
The intent most certainly does have bearing on the law. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter. Likewise, the intent of the pirate bay was to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted content, the attitude is simply used as evidence of intent. Mininova on the other hand appears to be trying to show that their attitude shows a different intent.
The implication that Clinton was drummed around because he was sleeping around is getting really old. The big issue wasn't the affair. The issue was that the POTUS committed perjury, a felony, in a case in which giving the correct testimony would have been relevant.
There would almost certainly have to be an intermediary service a la Paypal (I mean in the general aggregation sense, I have no idea of their capabilities for other currencies, etc). It would be incredibly expensive for all but the largest providers to maintain broad coverage of currencies/payment methods. Instead, it needs to be the business of a company to maintain this, and take a little off the top. That does mean that it's going to be more expensive to the end user, one way or another.
In general, that dollar is more likely to be spent and more immediately by the welfare mother, as the lower income levels tend to spend a higher percentage of their income. The counter argument is that the rich person who paid that dollar in taxes would have been more likely to invest and generate wealth with that dollar rather than spend it immediately. That dollar will still make it to another rich person who will likely invest spend his portion of the dollar and the cycle continues. The question is where that dollar is better spent, in the hands of the higher income people, or cycling through via the federal tax system to the lower income person.
I agree, there are elements that definitely look improprietous, but I don't believe they are nearly so damning as some are making them out to be.
Personal conflict of interest, which would be true if he had some personal or financial incentive. But simply having a position on an issue such as copyright doesn't indicate a conflict of interest in the same way that a murder suspect couldn't argue to have a mistrial because he knows that this judge has said before that murder is wrong. I don't know the full implications of this judges membership, but if he is a member of this organization as a matter of principle or belief in copyright, it doesn't necessarily indicate a conflict of interest.
In some defense, if he is a member of the organization not in a capacity of financial beneficiary of copyright, then it isn't quite so clear cut. If he firmly believes in copyright as a matter of law and principle, I don't think it's much different than a judge being a member of an organization lobbying for tougher murder penalties, etc. We wouldn't exclude him from murder trials. His judgment should come from interpreting the law. If he has failed terribly at that, then there are issues such as legislating from the bench that need to be discussed, but otherwise, this "conflict of interest" isn't nearly so glaring.
The problem isn't that they are merely a search engine. Intent is a big part of it, and TBP raison d'etre was to provide an engine for distributing copyrighted content.
In return, the users need to realize that the media and software industry not producing content in the right format or price range doesn't give the user the right to use the content for free. If one doesn't like the terms, it is within one's rights as a user not to purchase it.
I think it might be more fun to use it to chase off birds, dogs, neighbors...
Do you really want strangers controlling a mechanical device with heavy, metal, spinning blades at your home?
If you wouldn't mind satiating my curiosity. In what format do you take notes? Do you keep the original copy of the paper? Do you link, in some way, a specific point or note to a specific place in the paper?
I'm just digging into my masters and haven't had the best text processing skills, so I'm interested in how others do it.
I work with electronic medical records and we have found Fujitsu scanners to be top-notch. Fast, reliable, and generally affordable. We've also used some of the larger production scanners from Kodak and Bowe Bell and Howell. They are solid scanners, but are more expensive and haven't taken the beating we tend to give the Fujitsus.
We just replaced an old 3097 with the 6130 and are waiting to hear how it holds up. Note, most of these scanners are deployed to remote scan areas in the hospital where it is the responsibility of the users to handle maintenance, which means these scanners aren't cleaned and don't have rollers replaced. These older models have gone years with almost no maintenance.
I need to go find the study, but it was something to the effect of non-caffeine drinkers having roughly equal productivity as caffeine drinkers so long as the caffeine drinkers had their fix. If they didn't, they were decidedly less productive.
People who weren't regular coffee drinkers did get a boost, but the boost goes away as the body become accustomed to it. Drink it if you like it, don't don't if you don't, but definitely realize that it's a drug and some self-control should be employed.
I'm betting it's more of a scare tactic for other films. MPAA is using the press to remind everyone that they have the backing of the FBI and forensic fingerprinting just in case this happens again.
IANAL as well, but I believe that law protects a company from being forced to divulge trade secrets and allows them to impose contract obligations on people who know that secret (employees). I don't believe it is a blanket statement that says anything someone wants to keep secret is protected by law. That is to say, unless you have a contract or agreement protecting that secret the responsibility is on the keeper of the secret to keep it...well...secret.
I'm not terribly familiar with the Mac OSX transition, but Microsoft did a small step in that direction and it's come back to bite them. They have incredible inertia and customers who aren't nearly as forgiving (it's hard to criticize something when you've been so zealous about it). We can argue about how well it was implemented (poorly) but Microsoft tried to take a step in breaking down some of the issues with old code and broke or made inconvenient many packages that were written with poor privilege escalation. Customers were furious.
Jukebox style implying the users can choose the songs they want to listen to specifically. Not genre (radio style) and no skip ability (Pandora style).
Except for one caveat. Assuming you don't have free will, but instead that you perceive your actions to be free will by an illusion in your brain, and further that your actions and choices are predetermined from a finite set of experiences and interactions in your brain, then having the experience or understanding of the absence of free will as an axiom in your brain is another element by which decisions are arrived at.
In short, even if you don't have free will, believing that you don't have free will definitely affect the decisions made by the not-free brain.
I don't think you can begin to attribute the entire drop in sales or come close to the losses claimed by the music industry. The points you make are correct. But I also don't think that the loss in sales from copying of music is as insignificant as it's made out to be by this community.
More people, smaller payments. There was a music industry exec talking about a service that allows people to listen to music jukebox style either for free with ads or with a subscription sans ads. He was encouraging this model because, while the payout per song was lower, it encouraged people to listen more often, and also encouraged them to listen to new music more often in stead of listening to an album, purchased once, repeatedly. This is something that should have been embraced a long time ago.
What about a DDoS on a major stock exchange for example? Or someone brings down bus/train/air traffic control systems? Before anyone comes in with "The US ATC system is protected by..." that isn't the point. The point is, there are many critical systems that could cause great economic and possibly physical harm if successfully attacked. There are definite problems that can be had by this.
Evaluations can't compare an inner city school test scores to a suburban test scores as an absolute test of success. In stead you look at long term success rates across classes within the same school, and possibly to other schools in similar situations.
For example, a student takes a core competency test prior to being enrolled in first grade and takes tests at a fixed interval measuring success in competencies throughout the school career. Teachers that show regular scores that are within a certain range of teachers in similar situations over an average period of time will be rewarded as such. It would be foolish to arbitrarily compare them to everyone else because they are in a separate situation. It would be wonderful if they could raise scores to match more affluent schools, but it can't be, at least immediately, expected.
That said, I think that we have this exact problem with the current situation. There are some great inner city school teachers, but I think there is also a drain out of good school teachers to the higher paying schools leaving some of the under performing teachers which perpetuates these issues. Perhaps with merit pay there will be an incentive for highly skilled teachers to see those schools as an opportunity where over-performing schools have maxed out.