The defense of this "poor girl" is that she had no clue she was doing anything illegal.
First of all, are we really supposed to believe that she thought that musicians had just utterly given up on making money off their recordings.
Secondly, it's never been a valid excuse the plead ignorance. It's a pretty well established principle, that "ignorance of the law, is no defense" And what rock has she been hiding under, for the last 4 years, to not have a clue that the music industry has been fighting against things like Napster, MP3.com, etc.
Fact of the matter is, she was a major contributor to copyright violations. Both actively taking music that she hadn't paid for at all, as well as enabling others to share in her ill-gotten trove.
Sorry, but I really fail to see the problem here. My rights aren't being threatened at all. I have yet to share files on Kazaa, and I don't plan on starting.
So they are making it a criminal offense to host copyrighted, unreleased movies, on a publicly accessible network.
How is this a YRO issue in *any* way? What possible right, is being taken away? It's not even a fair use issue, given that it seems to be limited to pre-release movies. So there's NO way anyone has bought a DVD that they are just making a "backup" of for their own use.
Personally I find SCO's management style refreshing.
No wishy-washyness. It's damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead. Never a moment of doubt that they may be making a huge mistake. No second guessing themselves. We know what we want, and we know where we're going. And we'll be damned if ANYTHING is going to dissuade us. Full court press, lads.
Anyone that wants to, is 100% at liberty to record what they like, distribute it this way, tour how they like, etc. Right now. Absolutely nothing stands in their way.
The reason that artists sign with labels, is for the marketing support. At least that's a huge driver.
Just because you can envision an alternate model, doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to subscribe to it.
It's actually a case of using a technological means, to enforce a contract.
The cartridges in question are sold at a discounted price, called a Prebate. You get a cheaper cartridge with the understanding that you will return it when empty, to Lexmark. If you pay for a full price cartridge, you're more than welcome to refill it, at will.
It's a prefectly legitmate means of enforcing the terms of sale that the consumer agreed to, when he bought the discounted ink.
The thing that continues to be overlooked by the editors here:
The chipped cartridges, are NOT the only option for these printers.
There are 2 sets of cartridges that Lexmark sells. One set, is chipped for single use, and then you're obligated to return the cartridge back to Lexmark for them to refurbish, etc. They call it a "pre-bate" basically they are rebating you for returning the empty, at the time of purchase.
If you want to reuse/refill, etc yourself, then you can buy the non-prebated inks. And then you can just go hog wild.
So if a copyright holder is so un-enthusiastic about his property that he can't be bothered to pay $1 to maintain it, what are the odds he'll want to pay a lawyer to go after you, if you just ignore the copyright on it completely?
This isn't about legitimzing the length of the terms.
It's about making it so that works that the copyright holder doesn't care about anymore, lapse into public domain after 50 years.
As things stand now, the copyright is in force for the current excessively long term, even when the rights-holder is dead, buried, and forgotten. This is a minor tweak, to make it perfectly legitimate to re-publish "abandoned" works after 50 years, rather than the longer terms now in effect.
To all the people that are foaming at the mouth, over the network admins getting sued over this. READ THE DAMN STORY!!!
It's pretty clear from reading the article, that the RIAA is suing the operators of the file sharing networks. Not the LAN admins. In other words, they are pursuing lawsuits against people that are actively engaged in copyright violations. Nothing more.
For once on Slashdot, it would be nice if someone actually read the original material before popping off with the criticisms. As unlikely as that may be around here.
They are selling 2 classes of service. Either:
$40/mo for unlimited downstreaming. No servers allowed.
Or
$40/mo for 5GB/mo, and you're allowed to put up servers, etc. And an extra $3/GB for extra bandwidth.
They have an obvious, absolute rule to no servers. They do want to drive customers to the "business" accounts. BUT If you actually look at their page, the business accounts are the same price as the residential ones. The difference being that business accounts have a bandwidth cap.
So you can choose what service best suits your needs. Unlimited bandwidth, geared at downstream only. Or be able to run servers as well, but be limited in the amount of "free" bandwidth you get.
From http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/freem arket.html here's an excellent definition: A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation. If a commodity is in short supply relative to the number of people who want to buy it, its price will rise, producers and sellers will make higher profits and production will tend to rise to meet the excess demand. If the available supply of a commodity is in a glut situation, the price will tend to fall, thereby attracting additional buyers and discouraging producers and sellers from entering the market. In a free market, buyers and sellers come together voluntarily to decide on what products to produce and sell and buy, and how resources such as labour and capital should be used.
A free market can be contrasted with a controlled market, where prices are determined by a regulatory or administrative authority and do not respond flexibly in the face of varying demand and supply conditions. Controlled markets are characterized by rationingif production falls short of demand, or a buildup of unsold stocks if production exceeds demand.
If you read that, you'll see that the characteristic of a free market, is that supply and demand drives the pricing. Rather than regulatory mandates as to the market price.
As I explained in my earlier post ALL markets are subject to external influences. That does not cause them to cease being a free market. That just affects the free market prices, that are set, that's all.
Of course. But back to my original point, the black market does not operate on the same pricing mechinism as the legitimate free market. The buyers and sellers do not control the prices. Government controls the prices with the relative strength of prohibition. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the potential profit.
So you agree, that it's an open market, and that the prices are absolutely controlled by buyers and sellers. And then state that actually they are controlled entirely by the government.
The way the government controls the prices, is by increasing enforcement/prohibition. When they do that the risks go up for the participants in the market. And the price rises as a result of that.
It's absolutely a free market. Granted there is an external influence to the market. But in reality, there is to almost any other free market as well. Mother nature has various ways of affecting many "free markets".
Slashdot Mirror
The defense of this "poor girl" is that she had no clue she was doing anything illegal.
First of all, are we really supposed to believe that she thought that musicians had just utterly given up on making money off their recordings.
Secondly, it's never been a valid excuse the plead ignorance. It's a pretty well established principle, that "ignorance of the law, is no defense" And what rock has she been hiding under, for the last 4 years, to not have a clue that the music industry has been fighting against things like Napster, MP3.com, etc.
Fact of the matter is, she was a major contributor to copyright violations. Both actively taking music that she hadn't paid for at all, as well as enabling others to share in her ill-gotten trove.
Sorry, but I really fail to see the problem here. My rights aren't being threatened at all. I have yet to share files on Kazaa, and I don't plan on starting.
So they are making it a criminal offense to host copyrighted, unreleased movies, on a publicly accessible network.
How is this a YRO issue in *any* way? What possible right, is being taken away? It's not even a fair use issue, given that it seems to be limited to pre-release movies. So there's NO way anyone has bought a DVD that they are just making a "backup" of for their own use.
Or he would have figured out ages ago, that there's not age limit here.
Hell, read some of the comments to stories, and you'd *know* that it's kids that are skipping recess to wax eloquent here.
The US Government wasn't normally considered a small, innocuous organization either.
Personally I find SCO's management style refreshing.
No wishy-washyness. It's damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead. Never a moment of doubt that they may be making a huge mistake. No second guessing themselves. We know what we want, and we know where we're going. And we'll be damned if ANYTHING is going to dissuade us. Full court press, lads.
The article is pretty clear. His company searches for specific copyrighted materials. Not random sharers.
Just because it's possible to create a music industry that's utterly devoid of marketing, doesn't mean that it's ever going to happen.
And as long as there's marketing, there will be "middlemen" to facilitate it.
That it's already in place. More or less.
Anyone that wants to, is 100% at liberty to record what they like, distribute it this way, tour how they like, etc. Right now. Absolutely nothing stands in their way.
The reason that artists sign with labels, is for the marketing support. At least that's a huge driver.
Just because you can envision an alternate model, doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to subscribe to it.
"those who live by the sword, die by the sword"
we're now reduced to passing laws, because customers are stupid sheep that won't take the time to inform themselves?
It's actually a case of using a technological means, to enforce a contract.
The cartridges in question are sold at a discounted price, called a Prebate. You get a cheaper cartridge with the understanding that you will return it when empty, to Lexmark. If you pay for a full price cartridge, you're more than welcome to refill it, at will.
It's a prefectly legitmate means of enforcing the terms of sale that the consumer agreed to, when he bought the discounted ink.
The thing that continues to be overlooked by the editors here:
The chipped cartridges, are NOT the only option for these printers.
There are 2 sets of cartridges that Lexmark sells. One set, is chipped for single use, and then you're obligated to return the cartridge back to Lexmark for them to refurbish, etc. They call it a "pre-bate" basically they are rebating you for returning the empty, at the time of purchase.
If you want to reuse/refill, etc yourself, then you can buy the non-prebated inks. And then you can just go hog wild.
Caveat Emptor.
So if a copyright holder is so un-enthusiastic about his property that he can't be bothered to pay $1 to maintain it, what are the odds he'll want to pay a lawyer to go after you, if you just ignore the copyright on it completely?
This isn't about legitimzing the length of the terms.
It's about making it so that works that the copyright holder doesn't care about anymore, lapse into public domain after 50 years.
As things stand now, the copyright is in force for the current excessively long term, even when the rights-holder is dead, buried, and forgotten. This is a minor tweak, to make it perfectly legitimate to re-publish "abandoned" works after 50 years, rather than the longer terms now in effect.
By and large, if you're just slapping some new graphics and maps on an existing engine, you're not going to end up with anything innovative.
The really innovative stuff, depends on whole new paradigms. Whole new ways of playing, etc.
A new set of skins, is about as innovative, as the aliens got in original Star Trek.
To all the people that are foaming at the mouth, over the network admins getting sued over this. READ THE DAMN STORY!!!
It's pretty clear from reading the article, that the RIAA is suing the operators of the file sharing networks. Not the LAN admins. In other words, they are pursuing lawsuits against people that are actively engaged in copyright violations. Nothing more.
They are doing exactly what they should be.
The article said that they were suing the operators of the file sharing network. aka, the "kids".
If you could get AS/400 training as easily as Oracle/Java training. Then everyone else would too. And the pay scale would adjust accordingly.
They're called Neutron Bombs.
Honestly, as long as a system can be accessed by someone. It can be accessed by someone that shouldn't.
For once on Slashdot, it would be nice if someone actually read the original material before popping off with the criticisms. As unlikely as that may be around here.
They are selling 2 classes of service. Either:
$40/mo for unlimited downstreaming. No servers allowed.
Or
$40/mo for 5GB/mo, and you're allowed to put up servers, etc. And an extra $3/GB for extra bandwidth.
They have an obvious, absolute rule to no servers. They do want to drive customers to the "business" accounts. BUT If you actually look at their page, the business accounts are the same price as the residential ones. The difference being that business accounts have a bandwidth cap.
So you can choose what service best suits your needs. Unlimited bandwidth, geared at downstream only. Or be able to run servers as well, but be limited in the amount of "free" bandwidth you get.
The point to point makes no mention of bandwidth caps anyhow. So I would assume that it's unlimited as well.
From http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/freem arket.html here's an excellent definition:
A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation. If a commodity is in short supply relative to the number of people who want to buy it, its price will rise, producers and sellers will make higher profits and production will tend to rise to meet the excess demand. If the available supply of a commodity is in a glut situation, the price will tend to fall, thereby attracting additional buyers and discouraging producers and sellers from entering the market. In a free market, buyers and sellers come together voluntarily to decide on what products to produce and sell and buy, and how resources such as labour and capital should be used.
A free market can be contrasted with a controlled market, where prices are determined by a regulatory or administrative authority and do not respond flexibly in the face of varying demand and supply conditions. Controlled markets are characterized by rationingif production falls short of demand, or a buildup of unsold stocks if production exceeds demand.
If you read that, you'll see that the characteristic of a free market, is that supply and demand drives the pricing. Rather than regulatory mandates as to the market price.
As I explained in my earlier post ALL markets are subject to external influences. That does not cause them to cease being a free market. That just affects the free market prices, that are set, that's all.
Of course. But back to my original point, the black market does not operate on the same pricing mechinism as the legitimate free market. The buyers and sellers do not control the prices. Government controls the prices with the relative strength of prohibition. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the potential profit.
So you agree, that it's an open market, and that the prices are absolutely controlled by buyers and sellers. And then state that actually they are controlled entirely by the government.
The way the government controls the prices, is by increasing enforcement/prohibition. When they do that the risks go up for the participants in the market. And the price rises as a result of that.
It's absolutely a free market. Granted there is an external influence to the market. But in reality, there is to almost any other free market as well. Mother nature has various ways of affecting many "free markets".
rise together. That's why the proceeds go up. The winners are getting a better payout, for taking LARGER risks. Not smaller.
If the profits went up, without an increase in risk, then more sellers would jump into the market, and drive the prices back down.