The flaw in your argument is that it's the Driving part of driving that's the privilege. Automobile passengers are not required to carry Drivers Licenses. Why should Airplane Passengers be different?
And while I'm on the subject, are pilots required to carry pilot's licenses on them when they fly? (Seriously, I just wanna know)
If he wants to see the regulations, he should buy a plane and declare himself an airline. Then the government would HAVE to let him see the regulations, or at least not expect him to follow them.
Like in the article, where does the government require you to show ID? Just because the airline wants to see ID doesn't mean the Govt. requires them to ask. The article points out a misinformed employee more than it does a law.
Please RTFA before making stupid comments like this.
FROM THE ARTICLE...
The regulation under which the Transportation Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, instructs the airlines to collect such identification is classified as "Sensitive Security Information."
Everything else I agree with, but if somebody does not have a license, they should not be entitled to drive.
People without Drivers Licenses aren't entitled to drive. What does that have to do with renting a car? My Grandmother occasionally likes to fly (commercially, she doesn't pilot the plane guys) herself and me to her friends in Florida. She pays for everything except she has to give me the money to rent the car, since she doesn't have a valid Drivers License. Just because she's renting the car doesn't mean she's driving.
Please don't think before you speak, it help the rest of us figure out who the idiots are.
because Gilmore is a tosser who has nothing better to do than cause problems for himself and others, and then occupy himself with a lengthy process of publicising exactly why he thinks he should whine about them....any sane person would just pull out a photo ID and be on their way.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Boarding an airline is a service provided to you by a company. There is no inherent "right" to be able to fly. You are allowed to board as long as you provide what the airline requests, whether it be an ID or an inflatable banana.
If that were actually the case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. But the reason the airlines have these policies is to (supposedly) comply with Federal Law. I say suposedly because we can't see the law. And the Government requiring it's citizens to show ID before traveling is what people are upset about.
Commodore did something similar to it's resellers back in the day. We were selling Amiga 500's just fine, until they decided to sell huge quantities to the Mail-Order guys. I remember reading a magazine ad and realizing that people were getting Amiga's from the mail-order houses for LESS than I was as a reseller. It was just wrong.
I never said it was ok to steal music. I'm saying that the industry is using bad accounting to 'prove' that p2p file sharing is taking money from their pockets. In many cases, it's just not so.
The point that noone wants to discuss is that many of the CDs accquired through p2p systems are NOT canabalized CD sales. Many of these people would NEVER accquire this music at the current price point of CDs. You can't say.. "Well, there have been 10,000 copies of this CD copied, so we lost $180,000" because many of those people would simply have not bothered.
I have an example, but first some assumptions... (Yes I know the joke about assumptions)
First: We will assume that there is a lot of profit in an individual CD sale. I've seen enough evidence of this that I believe it to be true.
Second: We will assume that the music industry WANTS to make as much money as possible FOR ITSELF. (As opposed to making lots of money for it's artists)
Anyway, My example/idea/experiment is this... The next time Madonna, or Brittney, or whoever's hot next week, comes out with a new album, sell it for $6.00. Or maybe $6.50. Work out a price that still gives everyone in the distribution chain at least 1/2 the profit they were making on a 'regular' cd. (Except the Label, who's profit margin would be cut to 1/3 what it is right now.)
I predict that two things would happen. First: A lot more people who wouldn't buy an $18 album will be entirely willing to buy 3 (different) $6.00 albums, thus increasing total cash receipts. Since we halved everyone's profit (Except the record labels, which we cut by 2/3'rds) the artist is seeing 50% more money, and the label is making the same money it was on the expensive albums. This would also have the effect of tripling unit sales. Second: People would be more willing to buy an entire album just to get one or two songs. This also means more money coming in. And Third, people who had been entirely priced out of the market (Example: Young Kids) would now be in a position to buy music. All of this means more cash coming in.
(Short Tangent: If they did this, The Electronics arm of Sony would give every Record Label a big wet sloppy kiss as they cranked out more and more mega-CD-changers....)
This kind of pricing has precident. Anyone remember when Taco Bell used to sell it's regular taco's for like $1.79? They decided to swap volume for price, and they are now one of the Big Three Fast Food Chains.
But it won't happen.
Since the record industry makes it's profit after they pay everyone else, it is in their best interest to keep unit sales low, and costs high. Why go to all this trouble just so the ARTISTS can make a few more bucks? The Label doesn't care if the artists album goes Platinum or not. Just as long as they are raking in the bucks.
On a personal note, there are MANY artists who I own SOME albums of, but not all. If CD's were priced like tacos, I'd own the entire catalog of many musicians, just to say I had them all.
Specific examples: They Might Be Giants, Madonna, and The Nylons (Who?:)
Also! I'd go out tomorrow and buy up the entire back catalog of "Weird Al" Yankovich. I single out Weird Al because I already own all of his music, but much of it is on Vinal and Cassette. I'd have no problem re-purchasing on CD if the price was right. I bet you'd do the same thing.
There are (approximatly) 8 Billion Billion Billion Atoms in an adult human being. That's (I hope I get this right...) 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. So each atom gets 6 addresses. Including the ones I just rinsed down the drain.
Wait, maybe I should reclaim those addresses. We'll need some kind of monitor in the plumbing:)
GASP! People are actually USING their bandwidth? They're not supposed to USE it! It's just supposed to SIT THERE! How are the ISP's ever going to make money if people actually USE their networks?
Blah. Who cares what people are doing with their bandwidth? If you take away P2P, it'll be VoIP, or Streaming Video IM, or some new Immersive FPS with massive requirements. Give people bandwidth, they'll find a way to use it... Duh.
Ugh. I see it's "Make Nipok Crazy Day" again. I need to write this down on my calendar or something.
>Interesting, but irrelevant. You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.
True, True, Very true. And Irrelevant. See Below.
>The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use. Fair use is given to the public in exchange for strong copyright laws. In this case, the DVDCCA wants to have its cake (strong copyright laws) and eat it too (not allowing fair use).
The problem being addressed was that people who had purchased DVD's legally, Had purchased hardware legally, and were not violating any other laws or rules, were unable to watch their DVD's because the algorithm which they received access to by purchasing the hardware wasn't working properly for them. (Was incompatable with their OS.) The only way the movie industry could claim illegal use was to claim the user had no right to watch the movie at all. It wasn't a matter of leaping an inconvenient legal restriction. They Bought the DVD. The purchased a license for the algorithm. All they wanted to do was watch a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
The flaw in your argument is that it's the Driving part of driving that's the privilege. Automobile passengers are not required to carry Drivers Licenses. Why should Airplane Passengers be different?
And while I'm on the subject, are pilots required to carry pilot's licenses on them when they fly? (Seriously, I just wanna know)
If he wants to see the regulations, he should buy a plane and declare himself an airline. Then the government would HAVE to let him see the regulations, or at least not expect him to follow them.
Nipok Nek
Please RTFA before making stupid comments like this.
FROM THE ARTICLE...
The regulation under which the Transportation Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, instructs the airlines to collect such identification is classified as "Sensitive Security Information."
I don't think it can get much clearer than that.
People without Drivers Licenses aren't entitled to drive. What does that have to do with renting a car? My Grandmother occasionally likes to fly (commercially, she doesn't pilot the plane guys) herself and me to her friends in Florida. She pays for everything except she has to give me the money to rent the car, since she doesn't have a valid Drivers License. Just because she's renting the car doesn't mean she's driving.
Please don't think before you speak, it help the rest of us figure out who the idiots are.
because Gilmore is a tosser who has nothing better to do than cause problems for himself and others, and then occupy himself with a lengthy process of publicising exactly why he thinks he should whine about them. ...any sane person would just pull out a photo ID and be on their way.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
If that were actually the case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. But the reason the airlines have these policies is to (supposedly) comply with Federal Law. I say suposedly because we can't see the law. And the Government requiring it's citizens to show ID before traveling is what people are upset about.
Nipok Nek
Commodore did something similar to it's resellers back in the day. We were selling Amiga 500's just fine, until they decided to sell huge quantities to the Mail-Order guys. I remember reading a magazine ad and realizing that people were getting Amiga's from the mail-order houses for LESS than I was as a reseller. It was just wrong.
Never thought about a class action suit tho.
Nipok Nek
I also forgot to mention that the $6.00 CD would probably wipe out the Used CD market in a heartbeat. The Recording Industry would LOVE that.
Nipok Nek
I never said it was ok to steal music. I'm saying that the industry is using bad accounting to 'prove' that p2p file sharing is taking money from their pockets. In many cases, it's just not so.
The point that noone wants to discuss is that many of the CDs accquired through p2p systems are NOT canabalized CD sales. Many of these people would NEVER accquire this music at the current price point of CDs. You can't say.. "Well, there have been 10,000 copies of this CD copied, so we lost $180,000" because many of those people would simply have not bothered.
:)
I have an example, but first some assumptions... (Yes I know the joke about assumptions)
First: We will assume that there is a lot of profit in an individual CD sale. I've seen enough evidence of this that I believe it to be true.
Second: We will assume that the music industry WANTS to make as much money as possible FOR ITSELF. (As opposed to making lots of money for it's artists)
Anyway, My example/idea/experiment is this... The next time Madonna, or Brittney, or whoever's hot next week, comes out with a new album, sell it for $6.00. Or maybe $6.50. Work out a price that still gives everyone in the distribution chain at least 1/2 the profit they were making on a 'regular' cd. (Except the Label, who's profit margin would be cut to 1/3 what it is right now.)
I predict that two things would happen. First: A lot more people who wouldn't buy an $18 album will be entirely willing to buy 3 (different) $6.00 albums, thus increasing total cash receipts. Since we halved everyone's profit (Except the record labels, which we cut by 2/3'rds) the artist is seeing 50% more money, and the label is making the same money it was on the expensive albums. This would also have the effect of tripling unit sales. Second: People would be more willing to buy an entire album just to get one or two songs. This also means more money coming in. And Third, people who had been entirely priced out of the market (Example: Young Kids) would now be in a position to buy music. All of this means more cash coming in.
(Short Tangent: If they did this, The Electronics arm of Sony would give every Record Label a big wet sloppy kiss as they cranked out more and more mega-CD-changers....)
This kind of pricing has precident. Anyone remember when Taco Bell used to sell it's regular taco's for like $1.79? They decided to swap volume for price, and they are now one of the Big Three Fast Food Chains.
But it won't happen.
Since the record industry makes it's profit after they pay everyone else, it is in their best interest to keep unit sales low, and costs high. Why go to all this trouble just so the ARTISTS can make a few more bucks? The Label doesn't care if the artists album goes Platinum or not. Just as long as they are raking in the bucks.
On a personal note, there are MANY artists who I own SOME albums of, but not all. If CD's were priced like tacos, I'd own the entire catalog of many musicians, just to say I had them all.
Specific examples: They Might Be Giants, Madonna, and The Nylons (Who?
Also! I'd go out tomorrow and buy up the entire back catalog of "Weird Al" Yankovich. I single out Weird Al because I already own all of his music, but much of it is on Vinal and Cassette. I'd have no problem re-purchasing on CD if the price was right. I bet you'd do the same thing.
Nipok Nek
Being poor doesn't make you stupid.
True, but being stupid quite often makes you poor.
Nipok Nek
Don't worry. Mankind will have to fix the Y10K screw-up LONG before we have to fix IPv6.
(Ya mean the year is FIXED as 4 digits? What idiot did that? Didn't they know it'd break one day?)
There are (approximatly) 8 Billion Billion Billion Atoms in an adult human being. That's (I hope I get this right...) 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. So each atom gets 6 addresses. Including the ones I just rinsed down the drain.
:)
Wait, maybe I should reclaim those addresses. We'll need some kind of monitor in the plumbing
GASP! People are actually USING their bandwidth? They're not supposed to USE it! It's just supposed to SIT THERE! How are the ISP's ever going to make money if people actually USE their networks?
Blah. Who cares what people are doing with their bandwidth? If you take away P2P, it'll be VoIP, or Streaming Video IM, or some new Immersive FPS with massive requirements. Give people bandwidth, they'll find a way to use it... Duh.
Nipok Nek
I seem to remember doing much of my 7th period homework during my 6th period Study Hall. Ho no longer has that option.
So, the only way your parents wouldn't be able to check up on you would be if, say, the site gets Slashdotted? :)
Nipok Nek
If you have bush covering your face, you are *currently* getting laid!
Oh, I don't know. The Fast-Food industry seems to be getting along just fine on a cash-only basis.
Nipok Nek
To prove that the rules aren't as obvious and simplistic as many people try to make them sound.
"i" before "e" except after "c". Kindergarten time for MS - phorm
Is that so? Then Explain "Weird Science"
I had one of those. It was just four Mercury Switches with a button on the top of the handle.
I've had a Diamond GyroMouse Pro for YEARS. Box says Compatable with Windows 98 and 95 :)
Can you recommend a way to get out of the food rut...
When I'm not hungry, I don't want to cook.
When I AM hungry, I don't want to experiment, since I'm hungry!
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Try Proverbs 17:28
http://www.bartleby.com/108/20/17.html#28
Ugh. I see it's "Make Nipok Crazy Day" again. I need to write this down on my calendar or something.
>Interesting, but irrelevant. You have no legal "right" to play DVD's wherever you want to. That's why the algorithms are licensed.
True, True, Very true. And Irrelevant. See Below.
>The problem, legally speaking, comes in because they take away your right of fair use. Fair use is given to the public in exchange for strong copyright laws. In this case, the DVDCCA wants to have its cake (strong copyright laws) and eat it too (not allowing fair use).
The problem being addressed was that people who had purchased DVD's legally, Had purchased hardware legally, and were not violating any other laws or rules, were unable to watch their DVD's because the algorithm which they received access to by purchasing the hardware wasn't working properly for them. (Was incompatable with their OS.) The only way the movie industry could claim illegal use was to claim the user had no right to watch the movie at all. It wasn't a matter of leaping an inconvenient legal restriction. They Bought the DVD. The purchased a license for the algorithm. All they wanted to do was watch a movie.
Nipok Nek