Because it's pretty easy to take down a jetliner with a gun from inside it. Air marshalls are trained to avoid these kinds of problems (tho I bet the training would go out the window if they got in a fire fight and they would fire indiscriminately towards the cockpit (dead pilots/destroyed controls) or the tail (destroying the control systems and/or the engines) or the wings (Boom! or destroyed controls or destroyed engines). Not to mention explosive decompression turning multiple passengers into hamburger meat on their way out.
So I have paypal and they never really charge me anything. They don't seem to be a subscription service.
Why would I want to cancel them?
I guess I need to examine my credit card bill very closely to see what's happening there since my monthly bills are 1300 to 2000. Maybe I am missing something.
Huge amounts of land are locked up by the snowy owl. It's been observed in 2nd and 3rd growth forest. Hmm maybe it doesn't need old growth forest to live. enviro answer: snowy owl is protected and since observed in 2nd and 3rd growth forests you should be blocked from recutting those down too.
Enviro's are dominated by extremists. They have some good ideas but they ignore the fundamental problem
Too many people.
Nothing they say or do matters as long as the population keeps going up.
During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved.
http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htm Washington (CNSNews.com) - As concerns about eco-terrorism mount on Capitol Hill, there is more finger-pointing aimed at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which admits to having provided financial support to a group allegedly connected to the terrorism.
But while PETA acknowledges that some of its money has in the past gone to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and to the legal defense funds for several Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members, the organization denies that any of its money "goes toward illegal activities."
And now playing the race card... in this corner with a number of 17479724 and a reasonable number of funny and some informative posts: Bestiarosa!
(the crowd cheers).
Did not really see the prejudice myself. In my experience a lot of enviros are marxists (and some murderous and destructive).
The description is a nice metaphor: They are faking being green so they can advance their true red agenda. They really don't care about the environment at all. They just hate business, capitalism, and progress.
Not really. Many environmentalists really hate most people. They are willing to destroy other people's property. They are willing to kill people to save animals. They are pretty damn fanatical about their view points (no real middle ground). They are willing to lie and cheat to preserve trees so they can hike and camp in them.
Don't get me wrong- the other side is equally scummy and did a lot of damage in US the 50's and in Russia and China today. And just because you can't see the pollution like you used to be able to doesn't mean that it's not deadly. Clearly *SOMETHING* is screwing with our hormones bigtime and oil/ hormone like oil byproducts are suspect (tho so is soy).
But I don't think that big oil is behind the concept of "environmental wacko". They were wacko's to begin with.
I'd hate to go up against big guns lawyers after my collection of a few hundred songs copied from cd's and recorded off FM radio that have absolutely no pedigree (no receipts, no originals any more).
A lot seems to depend on if a jury believes you are lying or not. Personally, I think most people lie- even under oath- these days. If I was on the jury, I'd have a hard time believing someone with a lot of songs had acquired them legally. But then, I'd probably be going for jury nullification anyway unless they had been caught selling the songs.
I can't think of many places in south and central america that I would feel safe. Maybe some of the islands?
As long as drugs are illegal in the US (and americans and others keep pumping billions of dollars into drug growing gangs) it is going to be bad down there. Easiest solution would be to legalize but I guess that makes too much sense.
I hear you say that if you copy a lot of CD's, copy songs, and sell the CD's you don't think that would be fair use. So we are agreed there.
You earlier equated giving away the CD's with selling them so I assume you would agree that regularly buying CD's, copying the songs, and giving away the CD's would not be fair use.
Do you think if you buy a lot of CD's, copy songs, and then have the CD's stolen or destroyed, would keeping them be fair game?
The sony license doesn't allow that. Industry executives (and I assume their lawyers) would argue that fair use doesn't cover that (since how is it different than selling them- and how can you prove you didn't sell them- and if not then you could sell them and claim they were stolen).
There is a long accepted and legal practice of recording songs off the radio- they have sold devices that can do this since I was a child. It's also covered by the VHS fair use rulings.
Are you saying that making a recording off of a CD is legally equivalent to recording it off the radio or shows off of TV? I don't think it is.
Okay that is a long read. You seem serious so I owe you that.
--- A key statement is here: In deciding whether something is a fair use, a court will look at four factors. The test isn't mathematical, it's looking for what's ultimately fair.
I do not believe that there is not a court in the land that would look at you repeatedly buying CD's, copying songs off them, and then SELLING THE CD's, as "fair". I believe if you try to do this in an organized fashion with other people, they would come down on you really hard.
If you recorded the same songs off the radio, I do not think you would have any problems. If you do it through at a low volume or via "blind" methods like resale shops and kept it quiet then you will probably "get away" with it indefinitely. But there is always the risk someone could turn you in for a reward once you have enough infringing material (or if, for example, your ex-girl/boy friend gets pissed at you).
---
I will concede that you may have a legal loophole. However, lots of people pay big fines because of advice about similar "loopholes" in the tax system based on advice given to them. If you are actually an attorney and have experience in this area (which I can't know) then you go for it. But the courthouse is littered with the bodies of people who thought they could do stuff like this.
I've seen it in my personal life. I've seen minorities in my personal life threaten to do this and other minorities actually do this. I've seen the stupid lengths companies have to go to document everything so they can, if need be, prove years later that there was no racial or sexist reason for a decision.
Some of this was at a company where 80% of the managers were females of variety races and nationalities. The next level had one white female, two black males, a hispanic male and one white male. The next level was a female executive class- no idea above that tho I know there were female high executives.
Despite this racially and sexually diverse staff they still had to document everything and carefully make everything provably gender and race neutral to the point where our annual reviews had nothing to do with our actual jobs or job performance. And they were *still* sued (by minorities but not by white males) when they fired people for trading sexy material via email.
That being said, I can't trust any site on either side of the racism issue. The sites on the right pretend it is over. Some sites on the left are so stupid as to say if half the positions are not black, it's racism (CLUE: 12% of americans are black.. less than 50% are white.. there's this small group called "hispanics" and then there are tons of other small groups like asians and native americans). The fact is that whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics are interbreeding in increasing numbers. I look forward to a day when the distinctions are pointless. In all likelyhood I'm native american, european, and a teensy bit black. Probably no asian blood. The fact that I'm tall probably had more impact on my life than any of those things. There will be a day when being black or hispanic means as much as being irish or catholic.
I can't understand what part of copying a song and then selling/giving away the CD would constitute "fair use".
If I hear you right, we could all pass around the same CD (call it CD#1) to a few million people, each making copies of songs off of CD#1 and you believe that it would be legal for all few million of us to each keep copies of the songs made from that CD regardless of who had physical possession of the CD.
I think that is an unreasonable viewpoint and that it effectively says there is no copyright. I don't think your view would fly in court. I think if you organized a band of people and published the fact that a few thousand of you were "sharing" a single CD that the music companies would come after you and they would win.
My view is that Sony explicitly said what they all believe to be implicitly true anyway.
Yes but in the my original post, the opinion of record industry executives is that this is true even without the license.
And it is *trivial* to see their logic. the black and white...
You buy the CD, make a copy of a song and then sell the CD- you clearly lose the right to keep copies of the song. You buy the CD, make a copy of a song and then give away the CD- you clearly lose the right to keep copies of the song. And clearly if they can prove this, they can hit you for a bogus $750 infringement fine.
the grey...
You buy the CD and it breaks- they argue you lose the rights- a reasonable person would say you had the rights to copies (FROM that CD- not from other sources) as long as you had possession of the broken CD.
You buy the CD and it is stolen- how can you prove to them that it was not sold, given away, or broken and thrown away? Without the CD to prove you have legal ownership of the song- how can you prove the mp3 on your hard drive is not an illegal download?
---
Hell- I hate them and even I can see their logic. I argue the license to the music should be stored externally so you can easily qualify for an inexpensive replacement of the song.
While I hear your opinion, it seems really daft to me. I feel like you are disconnected from reality in your assessment of the risk of bombs blowing up planes if they were not taking these measures.
However, I understand that you would say the same about me. I don't think we can negotiate or talk out this particular point.
If they had planes with scanning vs planes where folks can board without scanning, I would choose the former.
I don't want an overly oppressive, nanny state, but I feel the cost of their scanning and recording my travel on planes is a good balance against the number of people who want to blow them up.
Slashdot Mirror
All bullets go somewhere. This is something law enforcement is trained in.
If they penetrate the outside of the plane they can go places you really don't want them to go (engines, control surfaces, control wires, etc.)
Because it's pretty easy to take down a jetliner with a gun from inside it.
Air marshalls are trained to avoid these kinds of problems (tho I bet the training would go out the window if they got in a fire fight and they would fire indiscriminately towards the cockpit (dead pilots/destroyed controls) or the tail (destroying the control systems and/or the engines) or the wings (Boom! or destroyed controls or destroyed engines). Not to mention explosive decompression turning multiple passengers into hamburger meat on their way out.
This is WAAAAYYYYYYY too late to make a difference helping parents.
So I have paypal and they never really charge me anything.
They don't seem to be a subscription service.
Why would I want to cancel them?
I guess I need to examine my credit card bill very closely to see what's happening there since my monthly bills are 1300 to 2000. Maybe I am missing something.
Indeed- they contribute so much CO2 that they are causing global warming on Mars and Titan too!
hmm. oh wait. there's some kind of a flaw in that.
Any sane person knows nothing is going to be done about the overpopulation problem.
We will take it right up to edge or past the edge.
50 years tops it is going to be completely unbearable or we will have had a billion dead to some war or disease or both.
We had one at the beach this summer.
I scored a 24!
Huge amounts of land are locked up by the snowy owl.
It's been observed in 2nd and 3rd growth forest.
Hmm maybe it doesn't need old growth forest to live.
enviro answer: snowy owl is protected and since observed in 2nd and 3rd growth forests you should be blocked from recutting those down too.
Enviro's are dominated by extremists. They have some good ideas but they ignore the fundamental problem
Too many people.
Nothing they say or do matters as long as the population keeps going up.
Oh you got the reference. Fun to see a similar mind out there.
Environmental extremists are extremely bad for the real environmental reform.
L EARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_Ameri ca&xpicked=4&item=eco
So there was no smile on my face because I was dead serious.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4780
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13367
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512c.asp
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?
During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved.
http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htm
Washington (CNSNews.com) - As concerns about eco-terrorism mount on Capitol Hill, there is more finger-pointing aimed at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which admits to having provided financial support to a group allegedly connected to the terrorism.
But while PETA acknowledges that some of its money has in the past gone to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and to the legal defense funds for several Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members, the organization denies that any of its money "goes toward illegal activities."
I just want you to build a nuclear reactor for me with your current education.
I really don't see a reason why you can't. It's just a big box, some water tubes and some fissionable material.
And now playing the race card...
in this corner with a number of 17479724 and a reasonable number of funny and some informative posts: Bestiarosa!
(the crowd cheers).
Did not really see the prejudice myself.
In my experience a lot of enviros are marxists (and some murderous and destructive).
The description is a nice metaphor: They are faking being green so they can advance their true red agenda.
They really don't care about the environment at all. They just hate business, capitalism, and progress.
Not really.
Many environmentalists really hate most people.
They are willing to destroy other people's property.
They are willing to kill people to save animals.
They are pretty damn fanatical about their view points (no real middle ground).
They are willing to lie and cheat to preserve trees so they can hike and camp in them.
Don't get me wrong- the other side is equally scummy and did a lot of damage in US the 50's and in Russia and China today. And just because you can't see the pollution like you used to be able to doesn't mean that it's not deadly. Clearly *SOMETHING* is screwing with our hormones bigtime and oil/ hormone like oil byproducts are suspect (tho so is soy).
But I don't think that big oil is behind the concept of "environmental wacko". They were wacko's to begin with.
Just look up ELF if you don't believe me.
You just leave something up that is popular and lock it at 5kbps up until it drops of the server.
Interesting post and a good read.
I'd hate to go up against big guns lawyers after my collection of a few hundred songs copied from cd's and recorded off FM radio that have absolutely no pedigree (no receipts, no originals any more).
A lot seems to depend on if a jury believes you are lying or not. Personally, I think most people lie- even under oath- these days. If I was on the jury, I'd have a hard time believing someone with a lot of songs had acquired them legally. But then, I'd probably be going for jury nullification anyway unless they had been caught selling the songs.
we really need to think about what we want to make crimes.
If 25% of the population is doing it but has been getting away with it because everyone ignores the law, then the law needs to go.
Otherwise it is going to be very oppressive and ridiculously expensive.
So we have to ask our selves what laws are currently making criminals out of huge numbers of otherwise productive members of society?
Mostly vices come to mind.
Well it is certainly an interesting loophole if true.
Peace man.
I can't think of many places in south and central america that I would feel safe.
Maybe some of the islands?
As long as drugs are illegal in the US (and americans and others keep pumping billions of dollars into drug growing gangs) it is going to be bad down there. Easiest solution would be to legalize but I guess that makes too much sense.
I agree, I drifted off topic.
back on topic.
I hear you say that if you copy a lot of CD's, copy songs, and sell the CD's you don't think that would be fair use. So we are agreed there.
You earlier equated giving away the CD's with selling them so I assume you would agree that regularly buying CD's, copying the songs, and giving away the CD's would not be fair use.
Do you think if you buy a lot of CD's, copy songs, and then have the CD's stolen or destroyed, would keeping them be fair game?
The sony license doesn't allow that.
Industry executives (and I assume their lawyers) would argue that fair use doesn't cover that (since how is it different than selling them- and how can you prove you didn't sell them- and if not then you could sell them and claim they were stolen).
There is a long accepted and legal practice of recording songs off the radio- they have sold devices that can do this since I was a child. It's also covered by the VHS fair use rulings.
Are you saying that making a recording off of a CD is legally equivalent to recording it off the radio or shows off of TV? I don't think it is.
Okay that is a long read. You seem serious so I owe you that.
---
A key statement is here:
In deciding whether something is a fair use, a court will look at four factors. The test isn't mathematical, it's looking for what's ultimately fair.
I do not believe that there is not a court in the land that would look at you repeatedly buying CD's, copying songs off them, and then SELLING THE CD's, as "fair". I believe if you try to do this in an organized fashion with other people, they would come down on you really hard.
If you recorded the same songs off the radio, I do not think you would have any problems. If you do it through at a low volume or via "blind" methods like resale shops and kept it quiet then you will probably "get away" with it indefinitely. But there is always the risk someone could turn you in for a reward once you have enough infringing material (or if, for example, your ex-girl/boy friend gets pissed at you).
---
I will concede that you may have a legal loophole. However, lots of people pay big fines because of advice about similar "loopholes" in the tax system based on advice given to them. If you are actually an attorney and have experience in this area (which I can't know) then you go for it. But the courthouse is littered with the bodies of people who thought they could do stuff like this.
Care to back up that the sky is blue?
I've seen it in my personal life. I've seen minorities in my personal life threaten to do this and other minorities actually do this. I've seen the stupid lengths companies have to go to document everything so they can, if need be, prove years later that there was no racial or sexist reason for a decision.
Some of this was at a company where 80% of the managers were females of variety races and nationalities. The next level had one white female, two black males, a hispanic male and one white male. The next level was a female executive class- no idea above that tho I know there were female high executives.
Despite this racially and sexually diverse staff they still had to document everything and carefully make everything provably gender and race neutral to the point where our annual reviews had nothing to do with our actual jobs or job performance. And they were *still* sued (by minorities but not by white males) when they fired people for trading sexy material via email.
That being said, I can't trust any site on either side of the racism issue. The sites on the right pretend it is over. Some sites on the left are so stupid as to say if half the positions are not black, it's racism (CLUE: 12% of americans are black.. less than 50% are white.. there's this small group called "hispanics" and then there are tons of other small groups like asians and native americans). The fact is that whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics are interbreeding in increasing numbers. I look forward to a day when the distinctions are pointless. In all likelyhood I'm native american, european, and a teensy bit black. Probably no asian blood. The fact that I'm tall probably had more impact on my life than any of those things. There will be a day when being black or hispanic means as much as being irish or catholic.
I can't understand what part of copying a song and then selling/giving away the CD would constitute "fair use".
If I hear you right, we could all pass around the same CD (call it CD#1) to a few million people, each making copies of songs off of CD#1 and you believe that it would be legal for all few million of us to each keep copies of the songs made from that CD regardless of who had physical possession of the CD.
I think that is an unreasonable viewpoint and that it effectively says there is no copyright. I don't think your view would fly in court. I think if you organized a band of people and published the fact that a few thousand of you were "sharing" a single CD that the music companies would come after you and they would win.
My view is that Sony explicitly said what they all believe to be implicitly true anyway.
If they discipline anyone except a white male directly, it is very likely they will be sued.
It's an aftereffect of earlier racism. At some point, it will fade and the people will be punished or rewarded without regard to race or sex.
Yes but in the my original post, the opinion of record industry executives is that this is true even without the license.
And it is *trivial* to see their logic.
the black and white...
You buy the CD, make a copy of a song and then sell the CD- you clearly lose the right to keep copies of the song.
You buy the CD, make a copy of a song and then give away the CD- you clearly lose the right to keep copies of the song.
And clearly if they can prove this, they can hit you for a bogus $750 infringement fine.
the grey...
You buy the CD and it breaks- they argue you lose the rights- a reasonable person would say you had the rights to copies (FROM that CD- not from other sources) as long as you had possession of the broken CD.
You buy the CD and it is stolen- how can you prove to them that it was not sold, given away, or broken and thrown away? Without the CD to prove you have legal ownership of the song- how can you prove the mp3 on your hard drive is not an illegal download?
---
Hell- I hate them and even I can see their logic. I argue the license to the music should be stored externally so you can easily qualify for an inexpensive replacement of the song.
While I hear your opinion, it seems really daft to me. I feel like you are disconnected from reality in your assessment of the risk of bombs blowing up planes if they were not taking these measures.
However, I understand that you would say the same about me. I don't think we can negotiate or talk out this particular point.
If they had planes with scanning vs planes where folks can board without scanning, I would choose the former.
I don't want an overly oppressive, nanny state, but I feel the cost of their scanning and recording my travel on planes is a good balance against the number of people who want to blow them up.
Stephen