About 6 months ago, bestbuy.com had a deal - buy the Tenacious D DVD, get a free four-song EP with unreleased tracks. Considering the DVD was selling for less than I had paid for their full-length CD (and it was a 2-DVD set at that), I ordered it, and decided to pick up the DVD at the store that night and have the CD shipped to me.
When I picked up the DVD, the spindle inside the case they gave me was broken, and as a result, one of the discs was so horribly scratched I couldn't play it. "No problem", I thought, "I'll just return it as a defective item and get a new copy." The customer service rep I dealt with said that because I ordered the DVD online, they'd have to void the sale, charge the price back to my card, then create a new sale, but the end result would be the same - I'd get an unscratched DVD. They even let me open the box right there to insure that the discs were OK. So I went home, new DVD in hand, and was happy.
A few days later, when I was checking my credit card online, I noticed the original charge from bestbuy.com, and an additional $17 charge dated the next day. I called their customer support, and was told that since I voided the sale of the DVD, they were charging me full price for the EP. I spent about half an hour on the phone arguing about Best Buy's return policies (she suggested that I should've shipped the DVD I picked up at the B&M store to them at my expense in order to get the replacement), then asked to speak to her boss. Of course, he was unavailable, but I got his name, direct phone number, and a promise that he'd call within 24 hours.
I never did hear back from the manager, but after leaving him a voice mail (where I used phrases like "never shop with you again" and "I will call the Better Business Bureau"), I got the ridiculous price of the EP refunded.
I've never had a problem with the staff at the B&M stores, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy from their website again.
Or how Shannen Doherty's eyes are crooked - one's higher up on her face than the other. I was perfectly happy gawking at her until someone told me that, and now it's all I look for, like Dunst's droopy eyelid, or Drew Barrymore's slight Bell's Palsy, or even Jessica Simpson's prehensile tail...
Why must a college campus be treated any differently from other organizations? If you're an employee, grad student, or are otherwise obligated to connect to their network, then they should supply you with the computer, just like an employer.
I distinctly remember buying a box of Cappucino-flavored All-Bran for my wife when we were honeymooning in Cancun. It was... well, about as tasty as All-Bran gets.
Tin Foil Hat beat me to the comment... Optimum Online has not shown any tendencies towards limiting anything other than servers running on their network, so I see no reason to jump from cable to DSL yet. Of course, that could change at any time, so I've kept Speakeasy's page bookmarked just in case.
I haven't seen or heard any RIAA advertising. If I didn't read sites like Slashdot, I wouldn't be aware of the issue. I think we're too close to the issue to be able to comment on it objectively.
Yeah, like that's ever stopped anyone around here.:)
See, this is where you statists are showing your slavish, unthinking, devotion to authority. So the state passes a law making it illegal to clear your throat in public after 7 pm. The penalty is a $50,000 fine. The law is dutifully published on page 13,739,342 of the Register of Laws. You clear your throat on a street corner at 8:30 pm and are nabbed by a sound activated camera mounted on a lightpole. It clearly identifies the state ID tattooed on your forehead. Guilty! Oh, you didn't know? Ignorance of the law is no defense!
Fine, but what if the State Anti-Throat-Clearing Committee has put countless ads on TV, radio, and in print saying "Clear your throat, go to jail"? What if the press picks up the story about the SATC sending subpoenas to 200+ throat-clearers? At that point, if you're ignorant of the law, it's your own fault.
The fact that sharing MP3s is illegal in the US is hardly shocking. Whether or not we agree with it, I think we all need to stop acting like it's some obscure portion of the U.S. Code that rarely applies to anything.
That doesn't exactly refute my argument. What's the tread limit on tires where you live? Off the top of your head.
1/16". Learned that one in driver education.
As for case law precedent, has there been a case yet where using a VCR to space shift copy righted material one doesn't hold a license to duplicate has been prosecuted?
Probably enough to warrant a trip to the Supreme Court. In Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios in 1984, the Court ruled 5-4 that time shifting was legal, because the bulk of VCR users record a show, watch it, then erase it by recording something else over it. That didn't make it legal to record a show and distribute the tape of said show, which is more in line with what people who share MP3s and whatnot are doing.
Yes, the laws that determine that what Brianna did is illegal are imperfect and need work. Many of the cases that the RIAA is bringing before courts will determine the case law precedent we're all looking for. But until then, the risks are well known thanks to the RIAA's advertising campaign. We shouldn't exactly be surprised that they're going to prosecute.
When you finally graduate your reasoning beyond 8th grade, you'll realize that not only is this idiom simplistic, it's also very false when applied generally. I realize that this is a general standard used by most judges, but it really is a load of horseshit when you apply it without any qualification.
The RIAA and MPAA have spent a lot of money advertising the fact that, yes, offering downloads of copyrighted material is, in fact, illegal. There have been several stories about this in the mainstream press. Assuming this particular case even goes to trial (and with all the bad publicity they're getting from this, that's doubtful), the RIAA is going to argue that, yes, her mother should have known, and if she's letting her 12-year-old daughter play on the Internet without supervision, then, what kind of mother is she?
Would you argue this point on any of the other RIAA subpoenas that have been sent to adults as opposed to minors?
Of course you can quote just the parts that support your argument. But they also said: this:
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
Since I don't have the Kazaa Plus EULA handy, I can't say for sure if buying it grants them the legal right to download the songs. But judging by what's available on http://www.kazaaplus.com/, I don't see anything that grants the user any additional rights to anything but the software.
Then again, perhaps they have a case against Sharman Networks and/or Avalon Distribution for misleading them.
This doesn't exactly refute my argument. I know jaywalking is illegal. Signs are posted all over the streets informing me of the legal speed limit for that section of road. I know the age of consent and the drinking age in my state. If I can't do the time, I don't do the crime. If I get caught speeding, I either pay the fine or appear at court. It's called accountability.
As for case law precedent, has there been a case yet where downloading copyrighted material that one doesn't hold a right to download has been been held up as legal? Please let me know if I missed something.
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
I disagree with the RIAA's ability to serve its own subpoenas, and this article might throw a little sympathy Brianna's way, but let's be totally honest here. Yes, Mrs. Torres, your daughter was doing something illegal. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
I've had this model fake volcano/mountain for like six years, and it took until now to find the appropriate mini-Airwolf. Now I just need to order one of these babies, paint it black, and get out my Ernest Borgnine figurine.
...or just order the Airwolf fuselage halfway down the first order page...
It is tough for a non-franchise fan to get into the all movie hoopla if they haven't seen where the franchise originated, especially if they have to spend $50 for a special edition for a movie they aren't even sure they will like.
Ummmmmm, isn't that what Blockbuster and the like are for? So that you *don't* have to buy movies you may not like?
...the legal ramifications of voice tracking, or the fact that since CCC started this, there's only been one instance where they've had a song show up that they didn't handpick^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanticipate making the Top 10.
For that matter, why wouldn't I buy the book, when the dead-tree edition would probably reach me quicker than the free download on the slashdotted server?:)
Slashdot Mirror
My clock says it's July 26, but with this story making it to the front page I *know* it has to be April 1.
Sure is warm for April, though.
Why, Sen. Hatch, I can download illegal MP3s through my web browser! GASP! Better shut down the WWW.
Oh, no! Now there's this FTP program people are using! Better shut that down, too.
Zounds! Someone just e-mailed me a song! Bye-bye, e-mail...
About 6 months ago, bestbuy.com had a deal - buy the Tenacious D DVD, get a free four-song EP with unreleased tracks. Considering the DVD was selling for less than I had paid for their full-length CD (and it was a 2-DVD set at that), I ordered it, and decided to pick up the DVD at the store that night and have the CD shipped to me.
When I picked up the DVD, the spindle inside the case they gave me was broken, and as a result, one of the discs was so horribly scratched I couldn't play it. "No problem", I thought, "I'll just return it as a defective item and get a new copy." The customer service rep I dealt with said that because I ordered the DVD online, they'd have to void the sale, charge the price back to my card, then create a new sale, but the end result would be the same - I'd get an unscratched DVD. They even let me open the box right there to insure that the discs were OK. So I went home, new DVD in hand, and was happy.
A few days later, when I was checking my credit card online, I noticed the original charge from bestbuy.com, and an additional $17 charge dated the next day. I called their customer support, and was told that since I voided the sale of the DVD, they were charging me full price for the EP. I spent about half an hour on the phone arguing about Best Buy's return policies (she suggested that I should've shipped the DVD I picked up at the B&M store to them at my expense in order to get the replacement), then asked to speak to her boss. Of course, he was unavailable, but I got his name, direct phone number, and a promise that he'd call within 24 hours.
I never did hear back from the manager, but after leaving him a voice mail (where I used phrases like "never shop with you again" and "I will call the Better Business Bureau"), I got the ridiculous price of the EP refunded.
I've never had a problem with the staff at the B&M stores, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy from their website again.
Or how Shannen Doherty's eyes are crooked - one's higher up on her face than the other. I was perfectly happy gawking at her until someone told me that, and now it's all I look for, like Dunst's droopy eyelid, or Drew Barrymore's slight Bell's Palsy, or even Jessica Simpson's prehensile tail...
Why must a college campus be treated any differently from other organizations? If you're an employee, grad student, or are otherwise obligated to connect to their network, then they should supply you with the computer, just like an employer.
Most of them do. Ever hear of a computer lab?
...since Lame doesn't use the Fraunhofer codec, and is widely available for most major platforms.
Honestly, has anyone even consciously *used* Fraunhofer's codec in the last four years for personal MP3 encoding?
Well, we were in Mexico...
I distinctly remember buying a box of Cappucino-flavored All-Bran for my wife when we were honeymooning in Cancun. It was... well, about as tasty as All-Bran gets.
So, for the sensor deprived: Wrap the entire text in a tag, and you'll be able to enjoy it much more fully.
Wait, he was being sarcastic? Crap... and here I was agreeing with him.
Tin Foil Hat beat me to the comment... Optimum Online has not shown any tendencies towards limiting anything other than servers running on their network, so I see no reason to jump from cable to DSL yet. Of course, that could change at any time, so I've kept Speakeasy's page bookmarked just in case.
And is it still 1/16"? Bet your license on it?
Absolutely.
I haven't seen or heard any RIAA advertising. If I didn't read sites like Slashdot, I wouldn't be aware of the issue. I think we're too close to the issue to be able to comment on it objectively.
Yeah, like that's ever stopped anyone around here. :)
See, this is where you statists are showing your slavish, unthinking, devotion to authority. So the state passes a law making it illegal to clear your throat in public after 7 pm. The penalty is a $50,000 fine. The law is dutifully published on page 13,739,342 of the Register of Laws. You clear your throat on a street corner at 8:30 pm and are nabbed by a sound activated camera mounted on a lightpole. It clearly identifies the state ID tattooed on your forehead. Guilty! Oh, you didn't know? Ignorance of the law is no defense!
Fine, but what if the State Anti-Throat-Clearing Committee has put countless ads on TV, radio, and in print saying "Clear your throat, go to jail"? What if the press picks up the story about the SATC sending subpoenas to 200+ throat-clearers? At that point, if you're ignorant of the law, it's your own fault.
The fact that sharing MP3s is illegal in the US is hardly shocking. Whether or not we agree with it, I think we all need to stop acting like it's some obscure portion of the U.S. Code that rarely applies to anything.
That doesn't exactly refute my argument. What's the tread limit on tires where you live? Off the top of your head.
1/16". Learned that one in driver education.
As for case law precedent, has there been a case yet where using a VCR to space shift copy righted material one doesn't hold a license to duplicate has been prosecuted?
Probably enough to warrant a trip to the Supreme Court. In Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios in 1984, the Court ruled 5-4 that time shifting was legal, because the bulk of VCR users record a show, watch it, then erase it by recording something else over it. That didn't make it legal to record a show and distribute the tape of said show, which is more in line with what people who share MP3s and whatnot are doing.
Yes, the laws that determine that what Brianna did is illegal are imperfect and need work. Many of the cases that the RIAA is bringing before courts will determine the case law precedent we're all looking for. But until then, the risks are well known thanks to the RIAA's advertising campaign. We shouldn't exactly be surprised that they're going to prosecute.
When you finally graduate your reasoning beyond 8th grade, you'll realize that not only is this idiom simplistic, it's also very false when applied generally. I realize that this is a general standard used by most judges, but it really is a load of horseshit when you apply it without any qualification.
The RIAA and MPAA have spent a lot of money advertising the fact that, yes, offering downloads of copyrighted material is, in fact, illegal. There have been several stories about this in the mainstream press. Assuming this particular case even goes to trial (and with all the bad publicity they're getting from this, that's doubtful), the RIAA is going to argue that, yes, her mother should have known, and if she's letting her 12-year-old daughter play on the Internet without supervision, then, what kind of mother is she?
Would you argue this point on any of the other RIAA subpoenas that have been sent to adults as opposed to minors?
Of course you can quote just the parts that support your argument. But they also said: this:
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
Since I don't have the Kazaa Plus EULA handy, I can't say for sure if buying it grants them the legal right to download the songs. But judging by what's available on http://www.kazaaplus.com/, I don't see anything that grants the user any additional rights to anything but the software.
Then again, perhaps they have a case against Sharman Networks and/or Avalon Distribution for misleading them.
You, of course, have never...
This doesn't exactly refute my argument. I know jaywalking is illegal. Signs are posted all over the streets informing me of the legal speed limit for that section of road. I know the age of consent and the drinking age in my state. If I can't do the time, I don't do the crime. If I get caught speeding, I either pay the fine or appear at court. It's called accountability.
As for case law precedent, has there been a case yet where downloading copyrighted material that one doesn't hold a right to download has been been held up as legal? Please let me know if I missed something.
From the article:
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
I disagree with the RIAA's ability to serve its own subpoenas, and this article might throw a little sympathy Brianna's way, but let's be totally honest here. Yes, Mrs. Torres, your daughter was doing something illegal. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
I've had this model fake volcano/mountain for like six years, and it took until now to find the appropriate mini-Airwolf. Now I just need to order one of these babies, paint it black, and get out my Ernest Borgnine figurine.
...or just order the Airwolf fuselage halfway down the first order page...
Close, but no cigar:
O f
Sites
Lazy
Admins
Seldom
Have
Duplicates
Topics
Two words that might cost Jake Gyllenhaal points: Bubble Boy.
It is tough for a non-franchise fan to get into the all movie hoopla if they haven't seen where the franchise originated, especially if they have to spend $50 for a special edition for a movie they aren't even sure they will like.
Ummmmmm, isn't that what Blockbuster and the like are for? So that you *don't* have to buy movies you may not like?
From the List of Inquiries and Substantive Answers, aka the alt.tv.simpsons FAQ:
How much does Maggie cost in the opening titles?
Maggie is listed as costing $847.63, a figure once given as the amount of money required to raise a baby for one month in the US.
...the legal ramifications of voice tracking, or the fact that since CCC started this, there's only been one instance where they've had a song show up that they didn't handpick^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanticipate making the Top 10.
For that matter, why wouldn't I buy the book, when the dead-tree edition would probably reach me quicker than the free download on the slashdotted server? :)
Alternately, the US version is viewable (and orderable) here. MSRP: $1599
I saw this at Micro Center and thought it looked sweet. If I had money to burn this would be my next PC...