Not if all the employees, executives, boards of directors and major shareholders were to find themselves sitting in cells without private toilets and sharing the space with a really big guy with arms as big as tree trunks who insists "You an' me are gonna be the bestest of friends."
Believe me, if that were the consequences, corporate governance would be a whole different bag of worms.
This was falsified a long time ago. Natural seepage into the Gulf nowhere equals what was puking out of that damaged well. The ecosystem has not returned to normal, and with the added known of the dispersal chemicals, no one can actually say what is happening or how long it will take for the oil to be absorbed. But this belief that bacteria just magically eat oil and in turn leave behind no deleterious side effects is pretty much akin to claiming that women's reproductive systems magically expunge rapists' sperm.
But you would have made a great member of the group at the beginning of Thank Your Smoking; the oil company representative who insists that oil spills just get eaten up by the ecosystem, and even vaguely hints that ecosystems actually benefit from it.
Actually, what you're post reminds of is a great and sadly departed Seattle comedy show called Almost Live, where there was fantastic sketch featuring a pro-tobacco lobbyist who said bizarre things like "Three out of four chiropactors agree that not only does smoking not harm you, but in fact places a protective coating on the lungs!" You could have done the followup sketch; "Three out of four industry 'researchers' insist that only do oil spills not harm the environment, they in fact feed the bacteria and make the environment even better!"
Well yes, there are ways that it could be done that would be hard to detect without a deep audit, but that's no different than countless other nefarious ways to undermine your competition.
Media Giant: You stole ten Lady Barfbag songs, you foul wicked pirate! Pay us $500.
25 Year Old Illegal Downloader Living In His Parents' Basement: Fuck that! I can't afford $500.
Media Giant: Um, well, can you afford $250, you stinking worthless thief?
25 Year Old Illegal Downloader Living In His Parents' Basement: Sorry, I'm not sacrificing next month's Cheetoh's budget for bad remakes of Abba and Maddona songs.
Media Giant: Look, $175 and we go away.
25 Year Old Illegal Downloader Living In His Parents' Basement: I think I've got $150 in my piggy bank, will that do?
Media Giant: sighs... Fine... And let that be a lesson to you!
But what percentage of torrent users would that apply to? A very small number I would imagine. Besides, the $20,000 cap on commercial infringement remains, so even if they get a judge to buy that flimsy argument, it's not exactly going to make them shitloads of money.
Frankly I'm rather impressed with the bill. It's enough to probably disincentive the casual downloader, and will likely incentive media firms to find ways like Hulu or a bigger Netflix catalog to try to capture those casual downloaders and at least get something from them.
The one thing that is very clear from what's happening in the US is that suing your customers into oblivion doesn't do much to help sales.
Sure it does, because it attempts to bind the current legislature, and without some constitutional power allowing Congress to not legislate on that matter, all it takes is for the day after the law is passed for another law to be passed repealing that law.
Having been through a lawsuit that ended up costing almost $40k in legal fees, I can certainly agree with most of your points. At the same time, unlike the lawsuit I was in, which could have ended up costing me somewhere in the neighborhood of $200k-$300k (it was a property/estate dispute), the cap here is $5000. The likelihood of the level of dispute that I had is very small indeed. I would think it likely that there will be few lawsuits, and instead lots of letters with settlements of $100-$500. If there is no potential for destructive awards to the plaintiff, I think it unlikely there will ever be that many cases.
If they came at me with threats of taking me to court, but the caps were $5,000, it would be worth it. For non-commercial file sharing, I simply do not see the media industry could create a Canadian version of Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum.
Frankly I think it's a bit of a scare tactic. With caps on liability, it isn't going to be worth it to pursue non-commercial illegal downloaders. I mean, $5,000 won't even likely cover the lawyers' time for filings. In a rather backwards way, the new legislation basically kills Canadian IP law firms' hopes of making kazillions like their brethren south of the border.
You should have seen the proposed copyright laws dating back to the Liberal government of the early 2000s. RIAA and MPAA were pushing really hard for a super-DMCA, and were still putting on the pressure over the last few years. But every once in a while, making a helluva lot of noise can accomplish something. I wrote my MP three letters over the last five years detailing out how the media industry-backed legislation would significantly harm consumers, remove choice and open up even minor infringement to destructive lawsuits.
Relax. In a couple of generations the US will be utterly reliant on Canada for much of its grain, energy and fresh water. You can join Confederation, get proper universal health care (instead of that bizarre bastardized system known as Obamacare, something only an American government could come up with), have Prince William as head of titular head of state instead of that incredibly silly President person, an executive that can be toppled by a vote of no confidence by the legislative branch, loonie dollar coins and a more sensible approach to copyright.
Heck, with the Westminster System, the likelihood of a third or fourth party have decent representation in the legislative branch goes up significantly.
Yes it is true. Lawmakers can't tie their hands like this save by constitutional amendment. The power of Congress to pass laws is a fundemental aspect of the constitution.
This law violates a fundamental notion that a legislature cannot be restrained by previous legislation. All a future bill would have to do is have a clause revoking this law and that is that.
There are likely many laws on the books that, for some interpretation or another, contradict each other. Could you point out where in the Charter such laws are forbidden?
Indeed. The lifespan of a PC is such that by the time it's time to move to a faster processor, almost inevitably a new motherboard is an absolute must. Hardware becomes obsolescent so much faster nowadays than it did during the 1990s and early 2000s. I haven't actually changed a CPU on a motherboard in probably eight years.
He is a pseudo skeptic who has come up with a simplistic claim and he'll ride it all the way. I do love how deniers claim natural systems are too complex to model, until of course they need to bolster their own claim, and then suddenly Chem 101 is all one needs to model atmospheric-oceanic reactions.
A company that's come close to abolishing Reply All is the global information and measurement firm Nielsen. On its screens, the button is visible but inactive, covered with a fuzzy gray. It can be reactivated with an override function on the keyboard. Chief Information Officer Andrew Cawood explained in a memo to 35,000 employees the reason behind Nielsen's decision: eliminating "bureaucracy and inefficiency."'
I hope somebody replied to all, quoting this entire memo and putting "OK" at the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if all the employees, executives, boards of directors and major shareholders were to find themselves sitting in cells without private toilets and sharing the space with a really big guy with arms as big as tree trunks who insists "You an' me are gonna be the bestest of friends."
Believe me, if that were the consequences, corporate governance would be a whole different bag of worms.
This was falsified a long time ago. Natural seepage into the Gulf nowhere equals what was puking out of that damaged well. The ecosystem has not returned to normal, and with the added known of the dispersal chemicals, no one can actually say what is happening or how long it will take for the oil to be absorbed. But this belief that bacteria just magically eat oil and in turn leave behind no deleterious side effects is pretty much akin to claiming that women's reproductive systems magically expunge rapists' sperm.
But you would have made a great member of the group at the beginning of Thank Your Smoking; the oil company representative who insists that oil spills just get eaten up by the ecosystem, and even vaguely hints that ecosystems actually benefit from it.
Actually, what you're post reminds of is a great and sadly departed Seattle comedy show called Almost Live, where there was fantastic sketch featuring a pro-tobacco lobbyist who said bizarre things like "Three out of four chiropactors agree that not only does smoking not harm you, but in fact places a protective coating on the lungs!" You could have done the followup sketch; "Three out of four industry 'researchers' insist that only do oil spills not harm the environment, they in fact feed the bacteria and make the environment even better!"
Well yes, there are ways that it could be done that would be hard to detect without a deep audit, but that's no different than countless other nefarious ways to undermine your competition.
I would think that a commercial entity doing the infringing sharing would pretty much automatically make it commercial infringement.
I'm sure in many cases it will end up like this:
Media Giant: You stole ten Lady Barfbag songs, you foul wicked pirate! Pay us $500.
25 Year Old Illegal Downloader Living In His Parents' Basement: Fuck that! I can't afford $500.
Media Giant: Um, well, can you afford $250, you stinking worthless thief?
25 Year Old Illegal Downloader Living In His Parents' Basement: Sorry, I'm not sacrificing next month's Cheetoh's budget for bad remakes of Abba and Maddona songs.
Media Giant: Look, $175 and we go away.
25 Year Old Illegal Downloader Living In His Parents' Basement: I think I've got $150 in my piggy bank, will that do?
Media Giant: sighs... Fine... And let that be a lesson to you!
But what percentage of torrent users would that apply to? A very small number I would imagine. Besides, the $20,000 cap on commercial infringement remains, so even if they get a judge to buy that flimsy argument, it's not exactly going to make them shitloads of money.
Frankly I'm rather impressed with the bill. It's enough to probably disincentive the casual downloader, and will likely incentive media firms to find ways like Hulu or a bigger Netflix catalog to try to capture those casual downloaders and at least get something from them.
The one thing that is very clear from what's happening in the US is that suing your customers into oblivion doesn't do much to help sales.
Sure it does, because it attempts to bind the current legislature, and without some constitutional power allowing Congress to not legislate on that matter, all it takes is for the day after the law is passed for another law to be passed repealing that law.
Having been through a lawsuit that ended up costing almost $40k in legal fees, I can certainly agree with most of your points. At the same time, unlike the lawsuit I was in, which could have ended up costing me somewhere in the neighborhood of $200k-$300k (it was a property/estate dispute), the cap here is $5000. The likelihood of the level of dispute that I had is very small indeed. I would think it likely that there will be few lawsuits, and instead lots of letters with settlements of $100-$500. If there is no potential for destructive awards to the plaintiff, I think it unlikely there will ever be that many cases.
If they came at me with threats of taking me to court, but the caps were $5,000, it would be worth it. For non-commercial file sharing, I simply do not see the media industry could create a Canadian version of Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum.
Frankly I think it's a bit of a scare tactic. With caps on liability, it isn't going to be worth it to pursue non-commercial illegal downloaders. I mean, $5,000 won't even likely cover the lawyers' time for filings. In a rather backwards way, the new legislation basically kills Canadian IP law firms' hopes of making kazillions like their brethren south of the border.
You should have seen the proposed copyright laws dating back to the Liberal government of the early 2000s. RIAA and MPAA were pushing really hard for a super-DMCA, and were still putting on the pressure over the last few years. But every once in a while, making a helluva lot of noise can accomplish something. I wrote my MP three letters over the last five years detailing out how the media industry-backed legislation would significantly harm consumers, remove choice and open up even minor infringement to destructive lawsuits.
Relax. In a couple of generations the US will be utterly reliant on Canada for much of its grain, energy and fresh water. You can join Confederation, get proper universal health care (instead of that bizarre bastardized system known as Obamacare, something only an American government could come up with), have Prince William as head of titular head of state instead of that incredibly silly President person, an executive that can be toppled by a vote of no confidence by the legislative branch, loonie dollar coins and a more sensible approach to copyright.
Heck, with the Westminster System, the likelihood of a third or fourth party have decent representation in the legislative branch goes up significantly.
Oh, and we have a plucky national anthem.
Yes it is true. Lawmakers can't tie their hands like this save by constitutional amendment. The power of Congress to pass laws is a fundemental aspect of the constitution.
This law violates a fundamental notion that a legislature cannot be restrained by previous legislation. All a future bill would have to do is have a clause revoking this law and that is that.
There are likely many laws on the books that, for some interpretation or another, contradict each other. Could you point out where in the Charter such laws are forbidden?
Indeed. The lifespan of a PC is such that by the time it's time to move to a faster processor, almost inevitably a new motherboard is an absolute must. Hardware becomes obsolescent so much faster nowadays than it did during the 1990s and early 2000s. I haven't actually changed a CPU on a motherboard in probably eight years.
Because we're going to fuck this one up pretty bad, and petroleum executives and shareholders will need a new place to live.
He is a pseudo skeptic who has come up with a simplistic claim and he'll ride it all the way. I do love how deniers claim natural systems are too complex to model, until of course they need to bolster their own claim, and then suddenly Chem 101 is all one needs to model atmospheric-oceanic reactions.
So let me get this straigh. You're arguing we can do whatever the fuck we want and because it won't likely kill all humans, that's okay?
I have learned that those that assume expertise in one area grants special insight into other areas often make fools of themselves.
Yes it probably would. And where exactly is the issue? Police should investigate all angles.
Ron Paul is an idiot. The US already had this debate, and the answer was no.
Ok
How about conservative Americans who want to secede?
Hub? Each of the EU members has passed enabling legislation giving laws by MEPs the force of domestic law.