is the band a person? someone wrote the song.. it was someones idea.. while more than 1 person contribute to an idea.. only 1 person has it..
in that case i would attribute that song to 1 person in the band.. then that person can sell the band rights to it for his/her's life time.. after that its PD
i always have problems when people try to put a # on how long it should last.. 30 years? why not 29? or 31?
i personally thing it should be for the life of the artist.. the actual person who created it.. not the company.. but the person to whom it came from.
sure this brings other questions when dealing with companies and other crap.. but i feel that if i made something i should have the say in how that is used.. but once i'm dead.. there isn't shit i can do about it.
and while i will agree that you should be able to sell sole access to the execution of the rights.. you shouldn't be able to for the actual ownership.. what i mean is.. if i make a work of art i can sell it to XYZ for full solo access to reproduce and profit from.. BUT i can' only sell it to the extent i own it.. meaning that they are only granted that right until I die.. at that point it becomes public domain.
the first time i fully agree.. but the current 2nd coming of MaBell that we are watching is what was talking about.. sorry if i wasn't clear about that.
the record industry got caught price fixing for a decade.. what happened? customers got leftover payola crap as a payout - and the they keep right on doing it.
the idea of free market means i should be able to come in and undercut them.. but MaBell is what you call too big to fight via startup.. and it doesn't help that even if you can fight them in the market place they are more than happy to get their in pocket politics to help their fight and make what ever you are doing wrong..
just take a look at Greenlight NC and the crap they are going through.
if i see a basket of fruit OUTSIDE the store.. with a sign that says TAKE or FREE on it.. someone had to put it there.. why should i be arrested if i do it? ESPECIALLY if the store put it there.
now you have the store.. putting it's files outside it's store with a sign that says download. again.. why should i be arrested if i do it? especially if the store put it there?
i understand your comment about the infringer has every reason to believe that what they are doing is illegal.. but downloading a file isn't illegal.. hell someone could post a file named one thing and you get something else.. how can you be responsible for that if you can't tell what it is till you get it?
now Crack is in all ways illegal.. and yes if your hunting for it you know your going for something illegal..
but if i put a song name in google.. and get 3 links.. one to amazon one to itunes one to rapid share.. which all happen to be posted by said company and all happen to have different prices.. then how the hell am i supposed to know?
they need money.. this drums up PR.. makes people think about them.. puts their name in the spot light..
keeping their name out there is about their only way to survive the long haul right now.. they way they have been treated the past decade.. if the public lost interest in them i'd bet they would disappear quickly.
because this confirms many unproven ideas that not all "life" is in the same form as we are a custom too - other than this.. all life that we knew before now on earth used the same base DNA structure..
basically they have found life.. not as we know it.. and means that some of our methods for proving there isn't life some place might be flawed.
exactly how many "bombs" have been stopped this way? and exactly how many items get "left" places every day.
sorry but this security theater is getting way over done.. i understand playing devils advocate - but as far as i'm concerned the populous has turned to sheep..
the the bombs blow.. let them crash planes.. i'm still far more likely to die every day because the guy next to me is driving a 2 ton truck and to busy texting to notice he isn't in his lane any more.
people live - people die.. get over it.. if you just go about your life and let them just keep trying.. eventually it won't be worth it to them, and even if they don't stop - it doesn't matter..
there is no amount of things you can do that will stop people from doing what they set them selves out to do.
yea but i bet like all good tax evading companies they put their retail hosting services on their own EC2/S3 platform as a sub corp so they can pay out their hosting/bandwidth/data center costs to another part of happens to be incorporated in a tax free zone.
if they did that then they would still fall under the AUP as the retail services would be a customer of EC2/S3.
No i have zero idea if they do this or not.. but given how most companies play with paper to avoid taxes - i wouldn't put it past them in a second.
If that was the case then sure.. but again.. it isn't trivial to set up reasonable sized setup son EC2 - Amazon knew ahead of time what it was getting into.. now i agree if hosting it was causing problems for their service that is one thing.
but i think we can all agree that at least one person from the US government requested Amazon stop hosting it.. and they did it without a court order.. that would be a violation of due process.
and while we are both holding our theories - personally i doubt that 10gbit/s bothers Amazon at any of it's locations - and am far more inclined based on the stuff we keep hearing coming out of our government that at least one of the fools placed a phone call.
but considering they are a biz - and the process for setting up any reasonable size setup on EC2.. Amazon knew ahead of time that they where going to host Wikileaks..
which brings it down to an outside of amazon influence changing their decision.. that to me sounds most like the US government - who if they did that violated due process by not getting a court order (if they had we would have heard about that).
do you honestly believe that after they moved to EC2 that not a single person from the US government contacted Amazon and requested they stop hosting wikileaks?
well like app ToS's they all have the line "this can be changed at any time without notice and your bound to it" with lines like that i really don't know why they bother with the rest of the document.. just put
ToS: You will do what we say, when we say, how we say, and pay us for it.
2000 does have features that would let one lock them down pretty well; as to whether this is feasible with a print server, I don't want to know.
ask Oce - they use win2k server on dell power edge towers as the controller in the printers that we have..
the Tech's have zero maintenance schedule for them and don't have access to configure or change them.. i block access to them except for the single VM that's allowed to talk to it.
Kudos to Amazon for knowing where their bread is buttered.
NO.. no kudos for them - now if they where presented with a court order to shut it down then by all means.
but this is a violation of due process if not, and as far as i'm concerned places Amazon out of what could be reasonably considered a common carrier on their EC2 platform..
which means they should be liable as assisting any illegal activity that happens on their EC2 platform.
Slashdot Mirror
is the band a person? someone wrote the song.. it was someones idea.. while more than 1 person contribute to an idea.. only 1 person has it..
in that case i would attribute that song to 1 person in the band.. then that person can sell the band rights to it for his/her's life time.. after that its PD
ahh the reason that my little pills that make me able to move every day cost more than my fucking house payment..
i agree what the "right amount" to charge is a tricky question... but i think we call all agree it's a lot less than what they are charging now.
and no i'm not joking when i say that - my monthly medication costs more than my house payment - and without it i wouldn't be able to function.
i always have problems when people try to put a # on how long it should last.. 30 years? why not 29? or 31?
i personally thing it should be for the life of the artist.. the actual person who created it.. not the company .. but the person to whom it came from.
sure this brings other questions when dealing with companies and other crap.. but i feel that if i made something i should have the say in how that is used.. but once i'm dead.. there isn't shit i can do about it.
and while i will agree that you should be able to sell sole access to the execution of the rights .. you shouldn't be able to for the actual ownership.. what i mean is.. if i make a work of art i can sell it to XYZ for full solo access to reproduce and profit from.. BUT i can' only sell it to the extent i own it.. meaning that they are only granted that right until I die.. at that point it becomes public domain.
the first time i fully agree.. but the current 2nd coming of MaBell that we are watching is what was talking about.. sorry if i wasn't clear about that.
and nothing of consequence happens from them..
the record industry got caught price fixing for a decade.. what happened? customers got leftover payola crap as a payout - and the they keep right on doing it.
the idea of free market means i should be able to come in and undercut them.. but MaBell is what you call too big to fight via startup.. and it doesn't help that even if you can fight them in the market place they are more than happy to get their in pocket politics to help their fight and make what ever you are doing wrong..
just take a look at Greenlight NC and the crap they are going through.
if i see a basket of fruit OUTSIDE the store.. with a sign that says TAKE or FREE on it.. someone had to put it there.. why should i be arrested if i do it? ESPECIALLY if the store put it there.
now you have the store.. putting it's files outside it's store with a sign that says download. again.. why should i be arrested if i do it? especially if the store put it there?
i understand your comment about the infringer has every reason to believe that what they are doing is illegal.. but downloading a file isn't illegal.. hell someone could post a file named one thing and you get something else.. how can you be responsible for that if you can't tell what it is till you get it?
now Crack is in all ways illegal.. and yes if your hunting for it you know your going for something illegal..
but if i put a song name in google.. and get 3 links.. one to amazon one to itunes one to rapid share.. which all happen to be posted by said company and all happen to have different prices.. then how the hell am i supposed to know?
they need money.. this drums up PR.. makes people think about them.. puts their name in the spot light..
keeping their name out there is about their only way to survive the long haul right now.. they way they have been treated the past decade.. if the public lost interest in them i'd bet they would disappear quickly.
because this confirms many unproven ideas that not all "life" is in the same form as we are a custom too - other than this.. all life that we knew before now on earth used the same base DNA structure..
basically they have found life.. not as we know it.. and means that some of our methods for proving there isn't life some place might be flawed.
exactly how many "bombs" have been stopped this way? and exactly how many items get "left" places every day.
sorry but this security theater is getting way over done.. i understand playing devils advocate - but as far as i'm concerned the populous has turned to sheep..
the the bombs blow.. let them crash planes.. i'm still far more likely to die every day because the guy next to me is driving a 2 ton truck and to busy texting to notice he isn't in his lane any more.
people live - people die.. get over it.. if you just go about your life and let them just keep trying.. eventually it won't be worth it to them, and even if they don't stop - it doesn't matter..
there is no amount of things you can do that will stop people from doing what they set them selves out to do.
i personally feel you should pay taxes where products or services are rendered.. doesn't matter where said company calls "home"
i know it's not their fault .. its the tax code's fault.. but it does bother me that the larger the company is the less it pays in taxes...
trying to figure out why you put that in as a Quote - as it is not at all what i said.
yea but i bet like all good tax evading companies they put their retail hosting services on their own EC2/S3 platform as a sub corp so they can pay out their hosting/bandwidth/data center costs to another part of happens to be incorporated in a tax free zone.
if they did that then they would still fall under the AUP as the retail services would be a customer of EC2/S3.
No i have zero idea if they do this or not.. but given how most companies play with paper to avoid taxes - i wouldn't put it past them in a second.
If that was the case then sure.. but again .. it isn't trivial to set up reasonable sized setup son EC2 - Amazon knew ahead of time what it was getting into.. now i agree if hosting it was causing problems for their service that is one thing.
but i think we can all agree that at least one person from the US government requested Amazon stop hosting it.. and they did it without a court order.. that would be a violation of due process.
and while we are both holding our theories - personally i doubt that 10gbit/s bothers Amazon at any of it's locations - and am far more inclined based on the stuff we keep hearing coming out of our government that at least one of the fools placed a phone call.
but considering they are a biz - and the process for setting up any reasonable size setup on EC2 .. Amazon knew ahead of time that they where going to host Wikileaks..
which brings it down to an outside of amazon influence changing their decision.. that to me sounds most like the US government - who if they did that violated due process by not getting a court order (if they had we would have heard about that).
we don't get "tax free" perks at amazon.. you are just committing tax evasion for not calming them your self as you should on your taxes.
do you honestly believe that after they moved to EC2 that not a single person from the US government contacted Amazon and requested they stop hosting wikileaks?
well like app ToS's they all have the line "this can be changed at any time without notice and your bound to it" with lines like that i really don't know why they bother with the rest of the document.. just put
ToS: You will do what we say, when we say, how we say, and pay us for it.
2000 does have features that would let one lock them down pretty well; as to whether this is feasible with a print server, I don't want to know.
ask Oce - they use win2k server on dell power edge towers as the controller in the printers that we have..
the Tech's have zero maintenance schedule for them and don't have access to configure or change them.. i block access to them except for the single VM that's allowed to talk to it.
Kudos to Amazon for knowing where their bread is buttered.
NO.. no kudos for them - now if they where presented with a court order to shut it down then by all means.
but this is a violation of due process if not, and as far as i'm concerned places Amazon out of what could be reasonably considered a common carrier on their EC2 platform..
which means they should be liable as assisting any illegal activity that happens on their EC2 platform.
"Thanks, that was great! - I know it was, I did it, now sudo go make me a sandwich before I kick you out."
there fixed that for ya
it takes 41 of 100 senators to make it work.
if 3/5 th's bring it to an end via Cloture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
so one senator can threaten it.. he needs 40 others behind him to ensure it.
the "DHS" is at ever corner reminding me of history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
sure so far it's not as bad or nearly as fast.. but every step it takes is in the same direction.
this might pass - and within a few years of abuse i'm betting the USA won't have a single root DNS server left..
if this is the burden of proof "materials believed to infringe copyright" then it isn't proof.
you can believe anything you want .. doesn't mean its right..