I wonder if their games are failing to produce the kind of cash flow that they had anticipated (and either pre-booked as profit or used to calculate EPS guidance for wall street) and are now scrambling to fill the short-fall.
Secular Fundamentalists never burnt people at the stake;never forcibly converted beliefs under threat of torture; never raped, pillaged, and murdered in the name of God; never murdered doctors; never bombed medical clinics and nightclubs. However, the history of Christianity is replete with such vile and barbarous acts. Your concerns are misplaced.
Except that the belief that something is true does not make it true. A person's belief vector has no impact on reality. If it did the Earth would be flat, the center of the universe, and populated by sea monsters. If you wish to say something is true, then you must prove conclusively that it is true. Otherwise it is only belief. The burden of proof is on you.
First, Start blog rumor that the TSA data transfer effected the votes on American Idol. Second, Get the 'all-sheep-all-the-time' networks to pick up rumor (hack Druge and put it up there). There will be nation-wide protests and a congressional inquiry within a week.
So, here in the US, if I remember last weeks lecture correctly, once something is published it is libel per se. However, you still have to prove (I think) intent and damages. Now this being a public official, in the US (again if I remember right) would require a showing of malice (reckless disregard of the truth - see New York Times v. ????) grr I can't remember and I do not have my Torts II notes with me. What interests me is how publication of potentially libelous material is handled in Canada. Then again I'm a 1LE so I could be and probably am completely wrong. 2L's & 3L's feel free to correct.
In this instance the terrorists failed. In the case of the WTC they succeeded (depending on how you classify success). That is the difference. If the WTC attack had been foiled, I have no doubt that there would have been a number of jokes on late-night television about putting all the lawyers/politicians/stock brokers into the towers and let them have another go at it. There might have even been some urban renewal/renovation jokes on Letterman. This is in no way "funny" in a conventional sense. This is, as an earlier poster pointed out, a bit of dark or gallows humor. It is a psychological mechanism for coping. On the other hand, with all of the tech support centers that are in India, the exact monolouge with which you take such umbrage would probably happen. It would also happen if all incoming comlinks were cut.
>Part of the reason more people want to live in CA than anywhere else in the country is because it's not yet a godforsaken slag heap.
I assume you have never lived in such wonderful places such as Compton, Long Beach, Riverside, Oakland... California sucks. My only hope is the the current rain and snowfall creates one huge swamp and the entire state burns, falls over, and sinks into the swamp.
Well, what I am trying to say is that there are two seperate legal ways to look at what is going on: either it is a criminal offense (theft) or it is a civil tort cause of action (conversion). You do not have to prosecute the criminal offense in order to bring the civil cause of action. Since RIAA/MPAA are looking for punitive damages I assume that what they are doing is bringing the civil suit. Conversion is a cause of action for interfering with a property right. Property does not have to be physical. So it sounds to me like RIAA/MPAA is saying we have an exclusive right by contract to this intellectual property (maybe it is a right of ownership or maybe it is a right of distribution/sale) and by making this piece of intellectual property available you have interfered with our right. That is what it sounds like to me.
What has happened is not theft, but a violation of the government-sanctioned monopoly over reproductive and distributive rights for these films.
Not quite correct, while it may or may not qualify as criminal theft, the behavior does seem to fall under the civil tort heading of conversion. Since conversion is a Strict Liability tort it does not require showing negligence (the old 'you broke it you bought it' idea). However, showing proximate cause and damages might be a difficult to show. I think that the 150K in punitive damages is a scare tactic. I would like to see how one of these turns out on appeal.
IANAL but IAA1LE. 2L's and 3L's please feel free to critique.
depends, do they believe their own propaganda? You assume that we are dealing with a rational government (well, technically two rational governments). When a government starves its own citizens and uses the relatives of political dissidents for bio-chem warfare experiments, I have serious doubts about how rational they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if their games are failing to produce the kind of cash flow that they had anticipated (and either pre-booked as profit or used to calculate EPS guidance for wall street) and are now scrambling to fill the short-fall.
Secular Fundamentalists never burnt people at the stake;never forcibly converted beliefs under threat of torture; never raped, pillaged, and murdered in the name of God; never murdered doctors; never bombed medical clinics and nightclubs. However, the history of Christianity is replete with such vile and barbarous acts. Your concerns are misplaced.
Except that the belief that something is true does not make it true. A person's belief vector has no impact on reality. If it did the Earth would be flat, the center of the universe, and populated by sea monsters. If you wish to say something is true, then you must prove conclusively that it is true. Otherwise it is only belief. The burden of proof is on you.
First, Start blog rumor that the TSA data transfer effected the votes on American Idol. Second, Get the 'all-sheep-all-the-time' networks to pick up rumor (hack Druge and put it up there). There will be nation-wide protests and a congressional inquiry within a week.
lay off the cajun coon-asses before they go Deliverance on your ass.
So, here in the US, if I remember last weeks lecture correctly, once something is published it is libel per se. However, you still have to prove (I think) intent and damages. Now this being a public official, in the US (again if I remember right) would require a showing of malice (reckless disregard of the truth - see New York Times v. ????) grr I can't remember and I do not have my Torts II notes with me. What interests me is how publication of potentially libelous material is handled in Canada. Then again I'm a 1LE so I could be and probably am completely wrong. 2L's & 3L's feel free to correct.
In this instance the terrorists failed. In the case of the WTC they succeeded (depending on how you classify success). That is the difference. If the WTC attack had been foiled, I have no doubt that there would have been a number of jokes on late-night television about putting all the lawyers/politicians/stock brokers into the towers and let them have another go at it. There might have even been some urban renewal/renovation jokes on Letterman. This is in no way "funny" in a conventional sense. This is, as an earlier poster pointed out, a bit of dark or gallows humor. It is a psychological mechanism for coping. On the other hand, with all of the tech support centers that are in India, the exact monolouge with which you take such umbrage would probably happen. It would also happen if all incoming comlinks were cut.
Not if it was replaced with an exact replica...
>Part of the reason more people want to live in CA than anywhere else in the country is because it's not yet a godforsaken slag heap. I assume you have never lived in such wonderful places such as Compton, Long Beach, Riverside, Oakland... California sucks. My only hope is the the current rain and snowfall creates one huge swamp and the entire state burns, falls over, and sinks into the swamp.
Today DARPA released a bid request for a 50% efficient solar cell.
Well, what I am trying to say is that there are two seperate legal ways to look at what is going on: either it is a criminal offense (theft) or it is a civil tort cause of action (conversion). You do not have to prosecute the criminal offense in order to bring the civil cause of action. Since RIAA/MPAA are looking for punitive damages I assume that what they are doing is bringing the civil suit. Conversion is a cause of action for interfering with a property right. Property does not have to be physical. So it sounds to me like RIAA/MPAA is saying we have an exclusive right by contract to this intellectual property (maybe it is a right of ownership or maybe it is a right of distribution/sale) and by making this piece of intellectual property available you have interfered with our right. That is what it sounds like to me.
The peasents are revolting ... and boy do they stink.
Only when I am working for the Department of Redundancy department.
it is necessary to forget history. To forget history it is necessary to hide history.
I for one welcome our dirt removing, washing machine overlords.
No, it would have to be trilithium. Dilithium would only get you 200%
What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
obi won kanobi you're my only hope.
it's worth every penny.
ummm... that's Bataan Death March not Burmese Death March.
No, he meant Stegography. It's where you hide a message inside a dinosaur and hope that anyone who tries to intercept it will be eaten.
depends, do they believe their own propaganda? You assume that we are dealing with a rational government (well, technically two rational governments). When a government starves its own citizens and uses the relatives of political dissidents for bio-chem warfare experiments, I have serious doubts about how rational they are.