Bush isn't quite foolish enough to try to make a direct relationship between the two, but he and his political allies have done everything they can to blur the line between the two. I saw a clip just the other week of a Republican politician tearfully justifying the continued occupation of Iraq by referring to the events of 9/11. Either he thought there was a relationship, or was hoping that no-one would notice what he was doing.
The wonderful thing about rights is that they can be so quickly and easily be surrendered. Fortunately there are some rights you cannot be required to surrender, and any contract that requires you surrender them is legally void.
I don't know about US law, but in the UK most offers/contracts/guarantees/etc offered by a shop terminate with the phrase; "This does not affect your statutory rights.". They do this because if anything in the previous paragraph could even be taken as suggesting that these rights were affected, it could be legally challenged.
Yeah, and then he got lucky again, producing and owning the format to one of the world's most successful TV franchises and becoming very rich and famous.
Some people just keep getting lucky, huh?
I'm not a fan, BTW, but you can't deny the facts. You don't get where he is through blind luck.
If you buy this song, you run the risk that it somehow ends up on the filesharing networks with your name written all over it, and you get sued to smithereens by the RIAA. Total risk exposure: a gazillion dollars That's right. In exactly the same way you'd get sued if your car is stolen and ends up involved in a bank robbery. I guess you should avoid placing your name on any of your property. No knowing where it might end up, doing what, and you'd automatically be liable!!
If they did the agreement then all would be nice, wouldn't it? If they did an agreement they would be setting several precedences that would be detrimental to their business;
1. You can sell our stuff without a licensing agreement and only then start to negotiate. 2. You can negotiate with us, and if it doesn't turn out a way you like, you can ignore us and go back to selling our stuff anyway. 3. You can use a loophole in a local law to sell our stuff at a price that undercuts the market back on our own doorstep, and screw all the other people we're already licensed with. 4. All other licensed traders will have no problem with this. They won't wish to 'renegotiate' along similar lines.
So if all this was established as being ok, do you honestly think that "all would be nice" for future trade? Can you honestly imagine any industry that would enter into such an agreement?
Just because you think you know something about the computer industry does not mean you can apply it to any other industry. Costs mean nothing when you ignore (or know nothing about) what determines market price.
UMG is offering to sell you music without DRM, so buy it. You misunderstand. Now is the time to invent new things to whine about.
So UMG doesn't really want it to work, they're doing it so that it can fail, they're not doing it at a high enough quality for our sensitive ears, they're only doing it to annoy Apple.
I'm in the middle of starting up a small business and was talking to someone about marketing. This individual (Not an in-duh-vidual - a Ph.D.) suggested that I send out mass emails. Please tell us you weren't paying this individual for this advice. Please tell us you haven't paid him anything since.
Unfortunately these people rely on someone else paying the developer in order to ensure version 2.0. It's called free loading and what pirate bay is all about.
Why should they worry if there's a version 2.0? If there isn't one they can always steal someone else's newer version 1.0. It worked out for them last time, so why should they go legit now?
- those people are potential customers for version 2.0.
They all clearly need the software, they probably all have ideas about how it could be improved. If this hypothetical software developer had some business sense, he would solicit those people to pay for the development of version 2.0. Come up with a list of feature enhancements, set a price to implement for each one, and then make sure that all the regular users of the software know that by paying up front, they can get their most desired features added to the next release. At which point these people say "No thanks, we'll wait and take version 2.0 for free off Pirate Bay, just like we took version 1.0."
The argument you're using here is a common one on slashdot. "Yeah they're not getting paid for their work, and everyone is taking it for free. But think of the good publicity and all the money they'll make later on." Well here's news; "later on" is now, and everyone is still taking their work for free.
Should the FBI raid my house? Well nothing in TFA suggests you are in any danger of this happening. Unless you are involved in the sale or distribution of the devices. But feel free to get worried about it.
I would ask my legal counsel why small portable computers with good battery life is non-existant, while gaming consoles with much more features are. Something is wrong with the market in my opinion. You think the court and your legal counsel would care about your opinion of the gaming console market?
So, tell me, why should I extend the bank the same courtesy when it's in my favor? Because you're a person with a sense of what's right and a desire to do it, while they are a faceless, soulless organisation?
Or, to put it another way, two wrongs don't make a right.
The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days. You got figures for that confident statement? Not just most, not just a majority, but a "vast majority"?
While it's the case that new computer systems tend to be LCD, most existing computers out there are over a couple of years old and far more likely to be CRT.
"Alfresco did not specifically ask community members the reason for their Linux choice"
So we have a self selecting sample, from which they've drawn conclusions on an issue they didn't even ask about. We're also left in the dark as to how Redhat compared to the other distros (like, for instance, flavour of the month Ubuntu) in recent months. So we don't know if the supposed surge in Redhat is more down to Redhat itself than disapproval of SUSE.
My analysis; this report is insignificant PR fluff, to which some fanboy has added cherry picked data to "prove" a political point he wished to make regardless.
That's an entirely different statistic. The question is not what percentage of "Tinseltown" donations went to Democrats, it is what percentage of Democrats donations came from "Tinseltown".
The scope of this ruling goes beyond only downloading music, it sets a precedent for other cases where 3rd parties request information on your browsing habits. So why is slashdot reporting it purely as good news for P2P music file sharers? The article summary merely trumpets "Potentially Huge Legal Boost for EU File Traders", and doesn't mention anything about my rights online, or possible precedents about my privacy.
So I think it's entirely valid to point out that file "trading" of copyrighted material is not a human right, and once again we have a slashdot summary that misses the big picture and is just another round of cheerleading for copyright infringement.
Excellent point. I approached the calculations with an open mind, particularly as the slashdot summary calls it 'dispassionate'. But then I read at the foot of the article; "Pollock has been an advocate for restricted copyright terms and stronger public domain for years", which rather boots all claims of an impartial study out the window.
Let's face it, when you're making up a mathematical model to fit a social construct you can 'prove' just about anything you damn well please just by arbitrarily re-evaluating your base figures.
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation
on
Sony Sues Rootkit Maker
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The rootkit software was developed by First 4 Internet (now called Fortium Technologies) Which is a totally irrelevant fact. Sony BMG's contract was with The Amergence Group Inc. If your phone didn't work, would you sue Alexander Bell or your phone company? Guess who you'd have more success suing?
Which is not to say that Sony BMG's case has any merit. But then I, and everyone else here, do not know what the contractual arrangement between the two companies was and how the rootkit was presented to Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush isn't quite foolish enough to try to make a direct relationship between the two, but he and his political allies have done everything they can to blur the line between the two. I saw a clip just the other week of a Republican politician tearfully justifying the continued occupation of Iraq by referring to the events of 9/11. Either he thought there was a relationship, or was hoping that no-one would notice what he was doing.
I don't know about US law, but in the UK most offers/contracts/guarantees/etc offered by a shop terminate with the phrase; "This does not affect your statutory rights.". They do this because if anything in the previous paragraph could even be taken as suggesting that these rights were affected, it could be legally challenged.
Yeah, and then he got lucky again, producing and owning the format to one of the world's most successful TV franchises and becoming very rich and famous.
Some people just keep getting lucky, huh?
I'm not a fan, BTW, but you can't deny the facts. You don't get where he is through blind luck.
In what way is this input 'insightful'?
1. You can sell our stuff without a licensing agreement and only then start to negotiate.
2. You can negotiate with us, and if it doesn't turn out a way you like, you can ignore us and go back to selling our stuff anyway.
3. You can use a loophole in a local law to sell our stuff at a price that undercuts the market back on our own doorstep, and screw all the other people we're already licensed with.
4. All other licensed traders will have no problem with this. They won't wish to 'renegotiate' along similar lines.
So if all this was established as being ok, do you honestly think that "all would be nice" for future trade? Can you honestly imagine any industry that would enter into such an agreement?
Music industry != Computer industry
Music != Software
Music market != Computer market
Distribution costs != market price
Just because you think you know something about the computer industry does not mean you can apply it to any other industry. Costs mean nothing when you ignore (or know nothing about) what determines market price.
So UMG doesn't really want it to work, they're doing it so that it can fail, they're not doing it at a high enough quality for our sensitive ears, they're only doing it to annoy Apple.
So it's OK to continue p2p downloading.
Is Dell paying slashdot for advertising their every move in the Linux market?
I hope neither galaxy is admitting culpability and have got those witnesses names and addresses.
Unfortunately these people rely on someone else paying the developer in order to ensure version 2.0. It's called free loading and what pirate bay is all about. Why should they worry if there's a version 2.0? If there isn't one they can always steal someone else's newer version 1.0. It worked out for them last time, so why should they go legit now?
They all clearly need the software, they probably all have ideas about how it could be improved. If this hypothetical software developer had some business sense, he would solicit those people to pay for the development of version 2.0. Come up with a list of feature enhancements, set a price to implement for each one, and then make sure that all the regular users of the software know that by paying up front, they can get their most desired features added to the next release. At which point these people say "No thanks, we'll wait and take version 2.0 for free off Pirate Bay, just like we took version 1.0."
The argument you're using here is a common one on slashdot. "Yeah they're not getting paid for their work, and everyone is taking it for free. But think of the good publicity and all the money they'll make later on." Well here's news; "later on" is now, and everyone is still taking their work for free.
Alleged throttling and shaping != banning
I love a bit of hyperbole. We'll make a tabloid out of slashdot yet! Some security minion becomes "armed security cop", becomes "armed guards".
What a pity no mention was made of what he was wearing, otherwise we would be on to his jackboots by now.
Or, to put it another way, two wrongs don't make a right.
While it's the case that new computer systems tend to be LCD, most existing computers out there are over a couple of years old and far more likely to be CRT.
They already can. Contrary to popular belief, music did exist before the Beatles. Some even say they were playing it way back in the 1940s!
The important phrase to take out of the article;
"Alfresco did not specifically ask community members the reason for their Linux choice"
So we have a self selecting sample, from which they've drawn conclusions on an issue they didn't even ask about. We're also left in the dark as to how Redhat compared to the other distros (like, for instance, flavour of the month Ubuntu) in recent months. So we don't know if the supposed surge in Redhat is more down to Redhat itself than disapproval of SUSE.
My analysis; this report is insignificant PR fluff, to which some fanboy has added cherry picked data to "prove" a political point he wished to make regardless.
That's an entirely different statistic. The question is not what percentage of "Tinseltown" donations went to Democrats, it is what percentage of Democrats donations came from "Tinseltown".
Erm, isn't this exactly what the article says?
So I think it's entirely valid to point out that file "trading" of copyrighted material is not a human right, and once again we have a slashdot summary that misses the big picture and is just another round of cheerleading for copyright infringement.
Does anyone even bother trying to record web radio?
Yes. There are applications available that do exactly this.
Excellent point. I approached the calculations with an open mind, particularly as the slashdot summary calls it 'dispassionate'. But then I read at the foot of the article; "Pollock has been an advocate for restricted copyright terms and stronger public domain for years", which rather boots all claims of an impartial study out the window.
Let's face it, when you're making up a mathematical model to fit a social construct you can 'prove' just about anything you damn well please just by arbitrarily re-evaluating your base figures.
Which is not to say that Sony BMG's case has any merit. But then I, and everyone else here, do not know what the contractual arrangement between the two companies was and how the rootkit was presented to Sony.