I give this example: if I created a picture that is completely moral/ethical/unobscene in Pennsylvania and put it on my web site or in my magazine, someone in, say Ohio
Hey... We Ohioans like our pr0n as much as the next guy.
If that's what they'd wanted, then that's what they should have written. As it is, the Constitution that was ratified by the States says that the Federal government does have the power to regulate interstate commerce.
I have no problem with that. It's the creeping regulation of intrastate commerce that sticks in my craw.
Another idiotic decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Clowns. I just hope Google has the stones to take it to the SCOTUS. Hopefully it'll be yet another overturned Ninth Circuit appeal.
Hey liberals... Did you notice which justices voted for the Kelo v New Haven eminent domain nonsense? Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor. It's a shame our boys Roberts and Alito weren't there in time to stop that travesty. It's also a shame for what they'll do to Roe v Wade, but, hey, something had to give.
... For these reasons I am, no... was, pro-Republican.
I couldn't have said it better myself. As a registered Republican, I intend to vote against all the incumbent Republicans this fall, simply because I fear having no opposition to the President. I cannot believe they didn't call him on the wiretap issue. I cannot believe they renewed the PATRIOT Act.
I'm never buying a piece of music from the RIAA again. I'm not going to give money to companies that use it to assault my rights in court.
The last CD I bought was for my wife. It cost $18 before tax and my wife listened to exactly one track on it. She even asked me to rip the CD and move that one track over to a mix disk because the rest was so bad she couldn't listen to it. $20 for one song. 2002 was the year the RIAA got their last nickle from me.
The RIAA has a tough row to hoe. Everybody knows that their physical media duplication cost is nil. Yet, their CD prices are the same or more than a 2 hour movie DVD with extras. Which costs more to produce... a movie or nine songs? Which has more fixed costs... a handful of musicians and a few audio engineers in a recording studio or a movie studio with audio and video engineers, cinematographers, stunt men, makeup artists, musicians, actors, set designers and builders, ad infinitum?
Sorry RIAA, but the value just ain't there... If it was, you wouldn't need to sue your customers.
...but the content is available in the library only because the copyright holder has allowed it to be made available in a public library.
As you said, it is a fine hair to split, but the content in the library is there not because of the explicit permission of the copyright holder. It is there because of the explicit permission of the Congress.
My whole point is that it is not illegal to view copyrighted content without paying for it. It is only illegal to make copies of copyrighted material as you just said. It is a fine distinction, but a dictinction that the MPAA/RIAA would like to erase. Moreover, the RIAA/MPAA would love to abolish all first sale doctrine and fair use doctrine as well. I think it's important that we are all aware of how much of our rights we cede to the media companies for a little cheap entertainment.
Only a fool or media shill could possibly argue that the current copyright laws foster creative works in a positive way. It is inconceivable how much of the world's creative works now disappear from humanity because of the current lifespan and automatic nature of copyright. They will be long gone and forgotten before their copyrights expire. Only a small fraction of all creative works are commercial enough to support 90-150 years of copyright without going out of print permanently.
DRM may also mean that there will be no way to resurrect many works after their final expiration (if ever). And Congress may just see fit to extend copyright again when things begin falling into the public domain. Is Mickey Mouse really more important to Disney than all which we sacrifice to protect him?
I know that if I (hypothetically) download a recent movie from BitTorrent, I'm committing copyright infringement, because I'm viewing a work that is protected by copyright, whose owner has not granted permission for free distribution.
Uh... Isn't that the purpose of a public library?
The MPAA & RIAA have done a wonderful job of brainwashing the masses. The "problem" is copying a work, not viewing it for free.
Wouldn't the job of the "checkers" be a lot easier if they could just look in the newspaper and see which advertisements explicitly say they intend to discriminate?
You don't need checker for that. The Fair Housing Authority can act on the advertisement. Anyway most newspapers are pretty selective about the copy they accept for real estate because of liability. They can be held liable just for printing it.
Checkers root out the landlords that discriminate secretly.
Seriously folks, why is everyone jumping on Netflix for actually earning a profit?
That's not the reason everyone is "jumping on Netflix." It's because of bait-and-switch. They advertise and offer a service, but they deliver something else. It's the dishonesty, not the profit motive that everbody hates.
Remember that businesses don't exist to serve the customer, only the owners/shareholders. It's the way it works.
Huh???? What business school did you flunk out?
If you don't serve your customers, you don't have a business. You have a hobby.
When a business run by competent individuals is failing to generate a profit, there are 2 options, 1) cease operations, or 2) change business practices.
No argument here. The problem is that Netflix advertised a particular service that they failed to deliver. When they were called on it, they denied it until a lawsuit was filed for deceptive business practices. Blockbuster got burned for their "No More Late Fees" horseshit the same way.
Netflix relies on the insurance model. They expect to average out the costs for the heavy renters with the light renters and make a profit. The problem is that they decided unilaterally to ration in order to skew the playing field and increase profits. If they could get away with it, it is better PR than raising prices. The problem is that they didn't get away with it and now EVERYBODY knows.
As a customer I can accept the new reality or I can (and did) take my business elsewhere. They face PR problems on that front too. Anybody that asks me about Netflix gets the story about throttling. I was throttled and I was only renting about three DVDs a week.
Before I quit Netflix I got a broken disk. I reported it as a broken disk and returned it and received the exact same disk one week later. This disk was split from hub to perimeter and was OBVIOUSLY broken.
I lost half a month on that DVD, because they had begun throttling me and it now was taking a complete week to get my rentals returned and replaced.
Either way though, it's still far cheaper than going to blockbuster (or any other video store), you don't have to leave the house, and you do get them quickly so your argument is completely illogical.
Yes, but not much cheaper than Family Video. For $10.00 per month, I get a 50% off discount. I rent two new releases each week for $1.25 apiece and get two "nearly new" videos free. I also get two free kids videos at the same time. So for that 20.00 per month I get 24 videos per month, guaranteed.
If I decide, I can rent more than 24 videos for a small premium. And I have to drive past the video store on the way to and from work anyway. The only advantage Netflix has for me is the selection and Family Video will take requests. It just wasn't worth the aggravation for me.
I guess "screwing over people who watch a lot of movies" is one of their "improvements" that they've made.
No. It's not an improvement. They have been doing it for years. I quit Netflix a couple of years ago when I noticed it happening to me. I didn't even know there was a term for it when I cancelled my account
We would get three movies on Friday, watch them over the weekend and I would drop them off at the post office Monday morning. I began to notice that if I dropped off three movies at the same time, they would "arrive" over three separate days. Things got slower and slower till I figured out I could rent cheaper at the local Family Video. Incidentally the video store is three doors away from the post office.;-)
I'm amazed at some of the comments here and how clueless some people are. In Ohio, fair housing "checkers" visit rentals, homes for sale, and engage Realtors. Fair housing complaints will get you in deep trouble, but checker complaints will get you in court.
I always recommend to landlords to spell out the requirements and the qualifications they use for all prospective tenants. I also advise to make sure that they disclose to all prospective tenants what qualifier they use to choose a tenant when everything else is roughly equal.
Handicapped? In most of the houses, the doorways were too narrow for a wheelchair, and the bathrooms too small. Two were suitable for wheelchairs... they rented FAST.
In Ohio, (maybe nationally, I don't know), you MUST allow any prospective tenant with a disability to modify the property to suit their disability. The tenant is responsible for the cost. You may also require a bond to restore the property to original condition. (assuming the modifications make the property less desirable)
If the landloard lives in the same unit, it's legal to discriminate on ANY basis.
Not true. The so called Mrs. Murphy federal exception only applies if there are four or less units. Also, state law makes this illegal in Ohio. I suspect that many other states have closed that loophole too.
Why should I have to waste my time visiting a place if the landlord will pick someone else anyway?
Because the landlord, by law, cannot pick someone else who has the same qualifications based on discrimination. There are a boatload of "protected classes" and if you refuse to rent to any one of these who otherwise have all the qualifications you require, you can be liable for a sizable legal judgment.
In real estate, there are quasi-governmental "checkers" of these protected classes who constantly attempt to rent and/or buy. If you get stung by a checker, you are in deep doodoo. You had better make sure your qualifiers are legal and well represented to ALL prospective tenants. You do not want fair housing authorities sniffing around your rentals.
It figures you would think that way. Did Rush Limbaugh tell you that or is that something you heard on fox news?
Again, you obviously have nothing to add to the debate, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. But just for you information, I do not have cable nor do I have satellite, so Foxnews is not on my radar. I have also never listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show in my life. I can, however, reason.
Maybe if you're not too busy reading the Village Voice, you can listen to NPR. Frank Duford mentioned a whole raft of frivolous lawsuits this morning on Morning Edition that won large awards. Each one was ridiculous in its entire premise. I'm sure you would have supported every one.
Did you interview the jury to determine if they were liberal or is anybody who disagrees with you automatically liberal?
It is a reasonable inference considering the issues of the case and the jury's resulting decision.
Too bad McDOnalds didn't hire you though. You are Soooooooooo much smarter then those idiot lawyers they hired.
I don't claim to be smarter than McDonald's attorneys, just the jurors of this particular case, and... apparently you too. I'm guessing you don't fare too well in areas that require critical thinking skills or abstract reasoning.
Look at all the "evidence" you presented here!.
I see that you failed to address any of the issues I presented. You howl that McDonald's serves coffee too hot, but you fail to address the fact that Starbuck's sells coffee at the same temperature. You ignore the fact that the coffee trade association recommends serving coffee at that temperature. You claim that drinking such hot coffee will cause third degree burns in the mouth but you simply ignore the nearly ten billion McDonald's customers over the last decade that had no trouble drinking it.
You have presented absolutely no argument as to why my assertions are in error or should be discounted. You have utterly failed to defend you own assertions when they are held up to scrutiny. You want me to accept your position simply on pure hysterical emotion as I have said all along. It is clear you have nothing constructive to add to the debate.
Starbucks, for example, serves its coffee at this temperature, and, indeed, has been subjected to similar lawsuits for coffee spills
And apparently the coffee trade industry diagress too:
...the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and maintained at a temperature of 180-185 degrees for optimal flavor and drunk immediately.
Fact facts, Killjoe. It was a misguided liberal jury in a civil tort (not a court ruling as you asserted) that awarded big money on an emotional sympathy vote. Because of this case and others just like it, everybody thinks they are one small step away from winning the lawsuit lottery.
Once again, it depends upon context. There are circumstances in which 20 degrees can literally be the difference between life and death.
Since you are interested in context, you do realize that the plaintiff was 81 years old, don't you? You do realize that a coffee spill might affect an 81-year-old much more harshly than a healthy 30-year-old male. You do realize that placing a hot cup of coffee between you legs in a moving car might be contrued as a much more risky behavior for an elderly lady than a young person.
McDonalds made the coffee to hot. Hotter then any of the national standards, hotter then what they had been told was safe. So hot it was unsafe to drink. If the woman had attempted to drink it she would have burned her mouth. They did this despite being told about it, despite being warned about it.
And were you aware that the plaintiff was 81 years old? Are you aware that octagenarians have generally thinner and more delicate skin? Are you aware she may have been more succeptible to burns and therefore should have been more careful as a result? Are you aware that we are arguing over a 20 degree F temperature difference?
It's risky to buy coffee?
No. It's risky to open a cup of coffee wedged between your legs in a moving car when you are 81 years old.
In this case the jurors were much brighter then you. They recognized that McDonalds was going to cause lots of burns on their customers and that they showed no regard for the safety of their customers. They chose to punish MCDonalds in the hope that the corporation would change it's behavior. It worked. Since we are unable to imprison corporations that's all we can do.
There were 700 incidents of coffee burns over a decade. They sell 1 BILLION cups of coffee a year. That works out to a 99.999993% safety record. This is clearly a non-issue as to your "record of safety" for customers. I would guess that a billion sales a year would attest to the desirability of the coffee served at McDonalds, regardless of your particular prejudices.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
It looks like to me that you are the one seeing the issue in only back and white. Corporations bad / Lawyers good. Check your facts before you start making wild allegations.
That Ferrari suddenly shot an iron spike out of the steering wheel when you crashed at 30mph
In most of our experiences, "normal" coffee is hot enough to hurt, and possibly cause 1st degree burns. In this case, it caused 3rd degree burns because it was served at such an unexpectedly high temperature.
Your iron spike Ferrari analogy fails. By your own admission, you expect to be burned by spilled coffee. The only controversy at hand is whether or not the extent of the injury constitutes a legal liability on the part of the vendor.
McCullough explicitily warned you in their operator's manual, and stamped "HOT" on the exhaust muffler (assuming your chainsaw is at all like mine). Thus, you knew about it. McD's didn't provide any warning that their coffee is served well above the average temperature, so a reasonable person would expect the coffee to be served near average temperature.
So you assert that a simple "HOT" warning sticker is all that would be required to absolve McDonald's of legal liability for burns injuries due to coffee spills? I can assure you that the muffler on an operating chainsaw greatly exceeds the serving temperature of McDonald's coffee. Despite the fact that coffee is universally understood to be served hot, I need only mark the obvious on the cup to shift responsibility to the purchaser.
That's a pretty tenuous liability asignment for a 2.7 Million dollar punitive award (reduced on appeal to $480,000)
This is why any jury reward is reviewed by professional jurists, also known as judges and appellate judges. And these professionals almost always reduce the jury reward to something "sane", as they did in this case.
And judges are subject to all the same prejudices and emotionalism as the juries they review.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... Unless you meant Cincinnati...
Another idiotic decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Clowns. I just hope Google has the stones to take it to the SCOTUS. Hopefully it'll be yet another overturned Ninth Circuit appeal.
Hey liberals... Did you notice which justices voted for the Kelo v New Haven eminent domain nonsense? Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor. It's a shame our boys Roberts and Alito weren't there in time to stop that travesty. It's also a shame for what they'll do to Roe v Wade, but, hey, something had to give.
I am worried...
The RIAA has a tough row to hoe. Everybody knows that their physical media duplication cost is nil. Yet, their CD prices are the same or more than a 2 hour movie DVD with extras. Which costs more to produce... a movie or nine songs? Which has more fixed costs... a handful of musicians and a few audio engineers in a recording studio or a movie studio with audio and video engineers, cinematographers, stunt men, makeup artists, musicians, actors, set designers and builders, ad infinitum?
Sorry RIAA, but the value just ain't there... If it was, you wouldn't need to sue your customers.
My whole point is that it is not illegal to view copyrighted content without paying for it. It is only illegal to make copies of copyrighted material as you just said. It is a fine distinction, but a dictinction that the MPAA/RIAA would like to erase. Moreover, the RIAA/MPAA would love to abolish all first sale doctrine and fair use doctrine as well. I think it's important that we are all aware of how much of our rights we cede to the media companies for a little cheap entertainment.
Only a fool or media shill could possibly argue that the current copyright laws foster creative works in a positive way. It is inconceivable how much of the world's creative works now disappear from humanity because of the current lifespan and automatic nature of copyright. They will be long gone and forgotten before their copyrights expire. Only a small fraction of all creative works are commercial enough to support 90-150 years of copyright without going out of print permanently.
DRM may also mean that there will be no way to resurrect many works after their final expiration (if ever). And Congress may just see fit to extend copyright again when things begin falling into the public domain. Is Mickey Mouse really more important to Disney than all which we sacrifice to protect him?
The MPAA & RIAA have done a wonderful job of brainwashing the masses. The "problem" is copying a work, not viewing it for free.
Checkers root out the landlords that discriminate secretly.
If you don't serve your customers, you don't have a business. You have a hobby. No argument here. The problem is that Netflix advertised a particular service that they failed to deliver. When they were called on it, they denied it until a lawsuit was filed for deceptive business practices. Blockbuster got burned for their "No More Late Fees" horseshit the same way.
Netflix relies on the insurance model. They expect to average out the costs for the heavy renters with the light renters and make a profit. The problem is that they decided unilaterally to ration in order to skew the playing field and increase profits. If they could get away with it, it is better PR than raising prices. The problem is that they didn't get away with it and now EVERYBODY knows.
As a customer I can accept the new reality or I can (and did) take my business elsewhere. They face PR problems on that front too. Anybody that asks me about Netflix gets the story about throttling. I was throttled and I was only renting about three DVDs a week.
Before I quit Netflix I got a broken disk. I reported it as a broken disk and returned it and received the exact same disk one week later. This disk was split from hub to perimeter and was OBVIOUSLY broken.
I lost half a month on that DVD, because they had begun throttling me and it now was taking a complete week to get my rentals returned and replaced.
Hey Netflix. That's why you lost me as a customer
If I decide, I can rent more than 24 videos for a small premium. And I have to drive past the video store on the way to and from work anyway. The only advantage Netflix has for me is the selection and Family Video will take requests. It just wasn't worth the aggravation for me.
We would get three movies on Friday, watch them over the weekend and I would drop them off at the post office Monday morning. I began to notice that if I dropped off three movies at the same time, they would "arrive" over three separate days. Things got slower and slower till I figured out I could rent cheaper at the local Family Video. Incidentally the video store is three doors away from the post office.
I always recommend to landlords to spell out the requirements and the qualifications they use for all prospective tenants. I also advise to make sure that they disclose to all prospective tenants what qualifier they use to choose a tenant when everything else is roughly equal.
In Ohio, (maybe nationally, I don't know), you MUST allow any prospective tenant with a disability to modify the property to suit their disability. The tenant is responsible for the cost. You may also require a bond to restore the property to original condition. (assuming the modifications make the property less desirable)
In real estate, there are quasi-governmental "checkers" of these protected classes who constantly attempt to rent and/or buy. If you get stung by a checker, you are in deep doodoo. You had better make sure your qualifiers are legal and well represented to ALL prospective tenants. You do not want fair housing authorities sniffing around your rentals.
Again, you obviously have nothing to add to the debate, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. But just for you information, I do not have cable nor do I have satellite, so Foxnews is not on my radar. I have also never listened to Rush Limbaugh's radio show in my life. I can, however, reason.
Maybe if you're not too busy reading the Village Voice, you can listen to NPR. Frank Duford mentioned a whole raft of frivolous lawsuits this morning on Morning Edition that won large awards. Each one was ridiculous in its entire premise. I'm sure you would have supported every one.
It is a reasonable inference considering the issues of the case and the jury's resulting decision.
I don't claim to be smarter than McDonald's attorneys, just the jurors of this particular case, and... apparently you too. I'm guessing you don't fare too well in areas that require critical thinking skills or abstract reasoning.
I see that you failed to address any of the issues I presented. You howl that McDonald's serves coffee too hot, but you fail to address the fact that Starbuck's sells coffee at the same temperature. You ignore the fact that the coffee trade association recommends serving coffee at that temperature. You claim that drinking such hot coffee will cause third degree burns in the mouth but you simply ignore the nearly ten billion McDonald's customers over the last decade that had no trouble drinking it.
You have presented absolutely no argument as to why my assertions are in error or should be discounted. You have utterly failed to defend you own assertions when they are held up to scrutiny. You want me to accept your position simply on pure hysterical emotion as I have said all along. It is clear you have nothing constructive to add to the debate.
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._Mc
No. It's risky to open a cup of coffee wedged between your legs in a moving car when you are 81 years old.
There were 700 incidents of coffee burns over a decade. They sell 1 BILLION cups of coffee a year. That works out to a 99.999993% safety record. This is clearly a non-issue as to your "record of safety" for customers. I would guess that a billion sales a year would attest to the desirability of the coffee served at McDonalds, regardless of your particular prejudices. http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
It looks like to me that you are the one seeing the issue in only back and white. Corporations bad / Lawyers good. Check your facts before you start making wild allegations.
So you assert that a simple "HOT" warning sticker is all that would be required to absolve McDonald's of legal liability for burns injuries due to coffee spills? I can assure you that the muffler on an operating chainsaw greatly exceeds the serving temperature of McDonald's coffee. Despite the fact that coffee is universally understood to be served hot, I need only mark the obvious on the cup to shift responsibility to the purchaser.
That's a pretty tenuous liability asignment for a 2.7 Million dollar punitive award (reduced on appeal to $480,000)
And judges are subject to all the same prejudices and emotionalism as the juries they review.