The forces of Rohan destroy the army of Eisengard. The Ents destroy Eisengard itself. A bunch of ghosts destroy the armies of Minas Morgol and then two little guys with furry feet cause Mordor to implode by destroying a ring.
Which leads us to the conclusion that if the US DoJ & the RIAA represent Isengard and Minas Morgol, they will eventually lose, although Sean Bean will die in the process.
no, made up of the people who can't come up with a convincing lie.
Or made up of well-meaning people out to 'do some good' who will probably convict because a prosecutor tells them to, particularly if he has a police officer to testify - the nasty criminal types belong in jail.
except that most juries are made up of people not smart enough to get out of it and will swallow the "it's encrypted, so he has something to hide, so he's a nasty criminal who needs to be found guilty" argument hook, line & sinker.
yes, they SHOULD pay for it, but given the choice of pay for it or don't use it, MOST would choose not to pay for it and do without.
There are 3 kinds of people:
those who want the software and will pay anyway
those who want the software but only if they can get it free (/very cheap)
those who don't want the software, free or not
Now, if you have X many people who have the software and say 20% fall into the first category and 80% fall into the second category.
Now, remove the software from the second category and everyone in that category has the choice to move to the first category and get the software at full price or stay in the second category and not have the software. The mistake that Microsoft's declaration makes is that it assumes that ALL the people in the second category will go to the first category and pay up. This is nonsense. Which means that, since the second category actually can still get the software; Microsoft's calculation as to how many of them WOULD be in the first category, given the choice, (and thus their calculation of the lost revenue), is wrong.
yes, that's precisely the sort of damage that a warranty is supposed to cover and not ordinary wear & tear. If you've been using the disc for 5 years and it wears out, that's ordinary wear and tear, if you use it for 5 hours and a huge gouge appears in it, that's extraordinary damage and what you would expect a free replacement for. Or it's what I'd expect a free replacement for - I'd be happy to pay for materials and P&P if the damage was just from ordinary usage.
you own some property which is rented by someone else. Next January a spreadsheet error causes you to lose that property (don't ask how). The new owner of the property kicks your tenants out. They no longer have anywhere to live and die of exposure the next night.
You run a charity which provides food to homeless people. A spreadsheet error makes you believe that your budget is only 10% of what it was last year. You drastically cut back your work. Someone dies of starvation.
Life can still be lost indirectly through loss of property or capital, not just if you're using a spreadsheet to calculate the safe loading weight of a rollercoaster.
X is not illegal
You do X
X becomes illegal
Government can't prosecute you for having done X before it became illegal. In Theory. My point in that sentence is that not being able to prosecute doesn't stop them from prosecuting, as another replier has provided some examples of.
A government can do anything it likes and the most you can hope for is to seek some sort of remedy after the fact (which will be meaningless if what they've done is, say, killed you). It's for this reason that the people must provide for their own defence against government.
Also, if they spot you doing something today which is not illegal and then make it illegal. They can't (in theory) prosecute you for it, but they could, say;
arrest you because you have a history of doing it and they can now probably pin it on you
get some big men in dark suits to accost you in the street and remind you that what you did on the 22nd March last year is now illegal
Flag you for extra surveillance involving 24 hour watching on CCTV and a camera strategically positioned in your bathroom
Put around the story that you did it before it was illegal and sociopathic perverts like you can't help themselves from doing it again now that it is illegal
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to catch up on Big Brother
An anarchist house? well, good luck to them. We tried to set up an anarchist house a few years ago; but it never worked - nobody would follow the rules.
no, it's not legal. Also, if the model LOOKS under 18 and the image is distributed/created with the intention of it looking that way, that's probably illegal too. Purely digitally generated 'child porn' is illegal. As is modifying adult porn to make it look like child porn.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to attend to my appearance, gotta look my best for all those cameras...
Medicine is expensive because, given the complexity of the human body, it requires a great deal of expertise and clever equipment to do.
Gas is really quite cheap for what it is; ~$4 to move 1/2 a ton of metal + you around 30 miles.
Media isn't cheap because of profiteering. Just look at blogs, gootube, radio (minus the cost of a broadcast license) - these things are cheap enough that they can be offered free to those who use them - not all media is expensive.
Justice is expensive because, like the human body, it's a complex thing. The difference is that we're stuck with humans in the way that they are and didn't make them like they are in the first place. We COULD make the law a damn-sight less complex, then justice would be cheap and, no longer based on whos lawyer can out-clever the legal system, more just.
Justice should be, like medicine in most first-world countries, free at the point of use. If EVERYONE had a public defender, they wouldn't be so crap relative to who they're up against.
Isn't slavery oulawed by the constitution (13th amendment)? garnishing wages, perpetual debt, fixed high interest rates. Sounds like court-manufactured fiscal slavery - anyone tried to have this law overturned on that basis?
An exception is made for 'those convicted of a crime', but libel is a civil tort, not a crime. Infact, since garnishing of wages is forceful appropriation of someone's economic work, isn't that effectively involuntary servitude? What amazes me is that I'm having to find a way to shoehorn this blatantly unjust law into being unconstitutional
well, because state sales taxes are unbelievably difficult to admnister for national companies, whereas federal income tax isn't quite so hard. All you need do is pick on the companies rolling in money and hike their tax rate up a bit, then share the money back out to the states, or have a war in the middle east, whatever.
So hit the giant corporations like AT&T with windfall taxes, and 'technology sector' taxes and leave it to AT&T to decide how much they'll take as a profit hit and how much they'll pass on. You don't have to directly tax the customers simply for buying (and let AT&T get themselves an extra $0.50 per customer when they put the prices up for taxes anyway).
Yeah, but Osama has a landline, so it's not like they can use his mobile signal to guide a missile onto him. All they could really use it for is to ask him to stay where he is whilst they come to get him and frankly, I don't think he'll listen.
sorry, should have referenced. Assertion comes from here from back in 2004. The fact that you pay less today than you did in 2003 doesn't mean that a surcharge isn't being applied - how much do CD-Wow charge elsewhere now in comparison to what they charged in 2003? The fact that you pay £1 less than you did 4 years ago doesn't mean that you're not paying £2 more than everyone else.
The fact that they're charging the British consumer extra for EU sourcing (which the British consumer probably doesn't want, since the cost is greater, but the product the same) but then still sourcing the CD's outside the EU may be wrong, but it's _us_ that they're screwing, yet it's the BPI (who's lawsuit threats are the cause of the surcharge) getting the free money!
I'm not sure what point you're making or what point of mine you're challenging. For whatever reason, UK customers pay more for CD's sourced in the EU, even if they actually aren't sourced in the EU. The threat of legal action in a British court has already had a negative effect on UK consumers (the original agreement). Now the high court has managed to break things even more.
They should have the right to do so because it is to the benefit of everyone but the penny-pinching members of the BPI. The high court judges have a duty to NOT uphold bad laws - that's why we have judges, not computers.
The other point is the stunning disproportionateness of the judgement - how can £21.7m in turnover have produced £41m in damage?
Slashdot Mirror
plot spoiler:
The forces of Rohan destroy the army of Eisengard. The Ents destroy Eisengard itself. A bunch of ghosts destroy the armies of Minas Morgol and then two little guys with furry feet cause Mordor to implode by destroying a ring.
Which leads us to the conclusion that if the US DoJ & the RIAA represent Isengard and Minas Morgol, they will eventually lose, although Sean Bean will die in the process.
damned liberals - they should have maintained execution for attempted suicide - serious crimes like that need a proper deterrent!
no, made up of the people who can't come up with a convincing lie.
Or made up of well-meaning people out to 'do some good' who will probably convict because a prosecutor tells them to, particularly if he has a police officer to testify - the nasty criminal types belong in jail.
except that most juries are made up of people not smart enough to get out of it and will swallow the "it's encrypted, so he has something to hide, so he's a nasty criminal who needs to be found guilty" argument hook, line & sinker.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Now, if you have X many people who have the software and say 20% fall into the first category and 80% fall into the second category.
Now, remove the software from the second category and everyone in that category has the choice to move to the first category and get the software at full price or stay in the second category and not have the software. The mistake that Microsoft's declaration makes is that it assumes that ALL the people in the second category will go to the first category and pay up. This is nonsense. Which means that, since the second category actually can still get the software; Microsoft's calculation as to how many of them WOULD be in the first category, given the choice, (and thus their calculation of the lost revenue), is wrong.
"They unveiled a 'Wii Zapper' housing that allows the Wiimote and Nunchuck to combine into a light gun"
Can you say 'inspired by Power-Rangers'? will there be something to combine your Wii and N64 into a zord as well?
yes, that's precisely the sort of damage that a warranty is supposed to cover and not ordinary wear & tear. If you've been using the disc for 5 years and it wears out, that's ordinary wear and tear, if you use it for 5 hours and a huge gouge appears in it, that's extraordinary damage and what you would expect a free replacement for. Or it's what I'd expect a free replacement for - I'd be happy to pay for materials and P&P if the damage was just from ordinary usage.
you own some property which is rented by someone else. Next January a spreadsheet error causes you to lose that property (don't ask how). The new owner of the property kicks your tenants out. They no longer have anywhere to live and die of exposure the next night.
You run a charity which provides food to homeless people. A spreadsheet error makes you believe that your budget is only 10% of what it was last year. You drastically cut back your work. Someone dies of starvation.
Life can still be lost indirectly through loss of property or capital, not just if you're using a spreadsheet to calculate the safe loading weight of a rollercoaster.
X is not illegal You do X X becomes illegal Government can't prosecute you for having done X before it became illegal. In Theory. My point in that sentence is that not being able to prosecute doesn't stop them from prosecuting, as another replier has provided some examples of.
A government can do anything it likes and the most you can hope for is to seek some sort of remedy after the fact (which will be meaningless if what they've done is, say, killed you). It's for this reason that the people must provide for their own defence against government.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to catch up on Big Brother
Bush - he's gone in 2 years anyway, and if he spends those 2 years annihilating the RIAA, that's a win for us.
An anarchist house? well, good luck to them. We tried to set up an anarchist house a few years ago; but it never worked - nobody would follow the rules.
I was answering a question about the situation in the UK. Am I likely to be talking about the US?
"and hold him/her to it."
By which you mean "Vote for someone else in 2012"?
no, it's not legal. Also, if the model LOOKS under 18 and the image is distributed/created with the intention of it looking that way, that's probably illegal too. Purely digitally generated 'child porn' is illegal. As is modifying adult porn to make it look like child porn.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to attend to my appearance, gotta look my best for all those cameras...
Medicine is expensive because, given the complexity of the human body, it requires a great deal of expertise and clever equipment to do. Gas is really quite cheap for what it is; ~$4 to move 1/2 a ton of metal + you around 30 miles. Media isn't cheap because of profiteering. Just look at blogs, gootube, radio (minus the cost of a broadcast license) - these things are cheap enough that they can be offered free to those who use them - not all media is expensive. Justice is expensive because, like the human body, it's a complex thing. The difference is that we're stuck with humans in the way that they are and didn't make them like they are in the first place. We COULD make the law a damn-sight less complex, then justice would be cheap and, no longer based on whos lawyer can out-clever the legal system, more just. Justice should be, like medicine in most first-world countries, free at the point of use. If EVERYONE had a public defender, they wouldn't be so crap relative to who they're up against.
Isn't slavery oulawed by the constitution (13th amendment)? garnishing wages, perpetual debt, fixed high interest rates.
Sounds like court-manufactured fiscal slavery - anyone tried to have this law overturned on that basis?
An exception is made for 'those convicted of a crime', but libel is a civil tort, not a crime. Infact, since garnishing of wages is forceful appropriation of someone's economic work, isn't that effectively involuntary servitude?
What amazes me is that I'm having to find a way to shoehorn this blatantly unjust law into being unconstitutional
well, because state sales taxes are unbelievably difficult to admnister for national companies, whereas federal income tax isn't quite so hard. All you need do is pick on the companies rolling in money and hike their tax rate up a bit, then share the money back out to the states, or have a war in the middle east, whatever.
So hit the giant corporations like AT&T with windfall taxes, and 'technology sector' taxes and leave it to AT&T to decide how much they'll take as a profit hit and how much they'll pass on. You don't have to directly tax the customers simply for buying (and let AT&T get themselves an extra $0.50 per customer when they put the prices up for taxes anyway).
or the AK-74... oh damn!
how about a 'second edition' wii with a row of classic cartridge slots on the back?
Yeah, but Osama has a landline, so it's not like they can use his mobile signal to guide a missile onto him. All they could really use it for is to ask him to stay where he is whilst they come to get him and frankly, I don't think he'll listen.
'Germany now run by fascist nutjobs with no grasp of reality'. That hasn't been news since 1933!
sorry, should have referenced. Assertion comes from here from back in 2004. The fact that you pay less today than you did in 2003 doesn't mean that a surcharge isn't being applied - how much do CD-Wow charge elsewhere now in comparison to what they charged in 2003? The fact that you pay £1 less than you did 4 years ago doesn't mean that you're not paying £2 more than everyone else.
The fact that they're charging the British consumer extra for EU sourcing (which the British consumer probably doesn't want, since the cost is greater, but the product the same) but then still sourcing the CD's outside the EU may be wrong, but it's _us_ that they're screwing, yet it's the BPI (who's lawsuit threats are the cause of the surcharge) getting the free money!
I'm not sure what point you're making or what point of mine you're challenging. For whatever reason, UK customers pay more for CD's sourced in the EU, even if they actually aren't sourced in the EU. The threat of legal action in a British court has already had a negative effect on UK consumers (the original agreement). Now the high court has managed to break things even more.
They should have the right to do so because it is to the benefit of everyone but the penny-pinching members of the BPI. The high court judges have a duty to NOT uphold bad laws - that's why we have judges, not computers.
The other point is the stunning disproportionateness of the judgement - how can £21.7m in turnover have produced £41m in damage?