If the music industry gets it's way, then the content producers could sue the cable companies for distributing DVR products...Say goodbye to Tivo...MythTV...etc.
I sincerely hope this makes it's way to the supreme court and then they get smacked down and told to STFU.
Easy...Just wire the money through several banks, in several countries on several continents (be sure to include a few countries that aren't very friendly to outside law enforcement). They would be jumping through legal hoops for YEARS in order track the money...if they ever could.
Isn't this what trusted computing is supposed to protect against? If you have a secure channel between your keyboard and your browser, and the browser's memory is protected, then a keylogger simply wouldn't be able to grab your password or secure ID token.
As much as we might not like trusted computing, as far as the DRM implications are concerned, it does have some legit and very useful applications...especially in thwarting phishing attacks like this.
energy prices are only going to up. Sure they may have their day-to-day fluctuations based on stupid little factors like the weather...but in the long term, they are going up.
Plus then your surplus energy would be helping to make the rest of the power grid greener. Since all of your energy is 100% green, if you help to power a couple other homes for a while, then they use more green power, and less dirty power.
If enough people do this, then a significant portion of people who don't have a green power system would be using at least some green energy. That could go a long way to helping reduce emissions from coal and oil plants since they will be burning less fuels.
true....right now it is outrageously expensive...but as the technology develops, prices come down
Once the price of oil gets so high (because we've tapped the wells dry) and the cost to produce energy using the conventional methods becomes high enough......Once the panels and other required equipment are produced on a large enough scale, prices will come down further.
Right now, every solar job is a custom job, so prices are high. Once it becomes mass produced and mass marketed, you might start to see entire systems ready to go for about $20,000. (i'm just pulling a number out of the air).
Same thing happened with every new technology...computers used to cost a million dollars apiece back when each one was a custom job. Now you can get a mass produced POS for $250, including a monitor, that is a million times faster than the $1 million dollar computer.
I know that there are costs involved in producing music...just as there are costs in producing movies...however, the costs involved are on a MUCH larger scale in movies as they are in music.
Now, before you say that i'm being hypocritical, let me explain:
The digital distribution era has made the old way of doing things obsolete. As you said, for a couple of grand, someone can setup a recording studio and put together a pretty decent album. The problem starts with the record companies.
The record companies sign the artists, front the very large amount of money it takes (under the old system) to record an album , and promotes and distributes the album. The contracts that the artists sign say that the artist gets so much money per album sold...usually around a dollar...only problem is that most of those contracts also stipulate that the artist doesn't see a dime until their $1 per album that they are supposed to get has paid for every single cost that the record company has incurred...from the recording, to the promotion, to the packaging and distribution...from what i've read, except for the HUGE pop artists, most artists would be lucky to see $100k from an album from the record sales...and how many artists release more than a couple of albums? Very few.
Under the old distribution system, the exchange was pretty simple: The artist gave the record company the rights to sell their album in exchange for the promotion. The record companies had a monopoly on the distribution channels...If you were an artist, you didn't get any publicity unless you went to a record company. So the artist got their name out there, and then they were free to exploit that publicity...in the form of concerts, merchandise, public appearances, endorsements, etc...which almost every artist does in one form or another since they make very little, if anything at all, from the sales of their albums.
Okay...now flash forward to today...the internet has sparked self distribution...Now for a couple of thousand dollars, someone can setup a website, produce their own album, and get free publicity on the internet by GIVING away the music. Oh, by the way, if you like the music, buy our CD direct from the source, or get a t-shirt, bumper sticker, poster, or come see us perform!
So...you may now ask what's the difference between the music and movie industries: It's simple...obsolescence. As you've said...you can produce a pretty professional album with a few thousand dollars, and enough time and dedication to make it work...assuming your music is good. Suddenly there is no need for all those people to be working on an album. The times in the music industry have changed...it's time for them to find a new line of work...these modern day candle stick makers are being put out of business by today's light bulb.
When you compare it to the movie industry: It's just not possible to produce a feature length film with only a few thousand dollars...even Memento, which was a great indie film with practically zero special effects and all using no name (at the time) actors cost $9 million...according to wikipedia.
So...lets compare: Cost to produce a low budget album: $5,000. Cost to produce a low budget movie: $9,000,000...cost difference: 1,800%. Cost of album on iTunes: $10. Cost of movie on iTunes: $10-$15. Cost difference: 0%-50%. Something just doesn't add up here.
So, the way I see it: I support the artists/actors, and the people who are truly needed to produce a work. All you need to produce an album is the artists time, and a few thousand dollars in costs to get it recorded...Artists can (and have) distribute/promote their music free over the internet, myspace, etc. They can sell their songs on iTunes using that indie music label (can't think of their name right now). They can use companies like cafe press, or even just have merchandise printed and sell directly using paypal and a $20/mo web hosting account.
The point: Artist can (and have) produce, distribute, and prom
anyone else notice that as the size of hard drives get bigger, that the relational size of EVERYTHING else gets bigger? OS, programs, documents, etc. It used to be you could fit a couple dozen word documents on a 1.44mb floppy...now you'll be lucky if your 4 page, all text, word document will fit on a floppy disk....but I guess that doesn't matter since we all have 1gb flash drives now:-D
This doesn't get the actors, writers, camera operators, musicians, and the other countless number of people that it actually takes to produce a movie paid.
This is one of the reasons why I don't pirate movies...too many people involved who won't get paid...people who are actually VERY important to the production.
Music on the other hand...only person i'm screwing is an obsolete record company executive...BFD.
You are right, fun is subjective. But it is also possible to generalize it as well:
ex: Going to an amusement park is fun! Getting stabbed in the eye is not fun. Sure...you will find (very) few people who enjoy getting stabbed in the eye...but in general, it's not fun. Same with an amusement park...you will find some people who don't find them fun. But in general...most people enjoy an amusement park, and most people don't enjoy getting stabbed in the eye.
Same with the Wii and PS3. Not to say that the PS3 isn't fun...Most people just haven't found it $500 worth of fun. And I do believe it is safe to say that most people, especially your average Joe, would consider the Wii to be more fun to play than the PS3.
Combine the fact that most people find the Wii more fun to play, with it being less than 1/2 the price of the PS3, and the games are cheaper...it's a no brainer for most.
Surprise Surprise! They aren't selling any consoles that are too expensive for people to be able to afford!
and they wonder why the Wii (which is twice as fun and half the price) is kicking their asses. Or why the 360, which is just as much fun and still almost 1/2 the price, is kicking their asses.
People just aren't convinced to buy in to their blueray premium.
The Wii has better game play...especially for beginners. And the 360 blows anything out of the water for online play.
What about depressed communities where there are more people who want work than there are jobs? Everyone has to work in order to put food on the table. But if you live in a geographical area that has been hit hard by changing times, then your only choice might be a workat a place that is hazardous to your health.
These people need to have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs just like everyone else. People do some crazy things when they are down and out...prostitution, bank robberies, etc. I would say that "choosing" to work in a smoke filled bar is a much better decision that many of the alternatives...but you have to realize that it's probably the best, and in may cases, the only decision that someone may have.
You should also note that the people forced to work in these situations are also going to be same exact people who don't have any health insurance...and therefor they _ESPECIALLY_ need our support to stay healthy.
Remember that old saying "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Notice how life comes first and pursuit of happiness comes last? Someone's right to their life/health far trumps someone else's right to smoke (happiness)...especially when that person pursuing happiness can do so in the privacy of their own home where it won't affect others.
FTFA: "The real-time tracking would only occur for those who have agreed to be located and had given the user their mobile phone numbers."
So you have to agree to be tracked in the first place.
FTA: "Using the phones' built-in GPS satellite technology, the Boost Loopt service could alert users whenever their friends are within a half-mile to 25 miles."
It looks like you can set it anywhere from 1/2 mile to 25 mile radius.
"We've already talked about it, there's no chance we're buying a PS3 at launch. That's Grade-A bullshit."
Ouch. According to Joystiq, the room erupted in cheers and applause at the answer
Not only did they say they weren't going to buy the PS3 at launch, they also said that the PS3 is total bullshit, and then everyone in the room started cheering at them for it.
"I say the consequence for violating the constitution should be stiffer than anything corrupt officials can impose--say, complete and utter destruction of the corporation. Collaborate with corrupt government officials in an unconstitutional act? Fine. You aren't a corporation anymore. Everyone is fired, the assets are auctioned off and the proceeds (after all the corporation's debts are paid) goes to the shareholders."
I think this is entirely wrong. You are punishing the wrong people:
By saying the corporation no longer exists and firing everyone you are simply putting countless thousands of INNOCENT people out of a job (the people who maintain the lines, the customer service reps, the secretaries who do nothing but file papers all day, etc...the every day people who work 9-5).
By auctioning off the assets and giving the proceeds to the shareholders you do not punish the very people who should be...the people who own the company. These people will just take there money and invest it elsewhere only caring about making more money and not about any constitutional ethics.
And the last thing America needs is LESS competition in the telecommunications industry...This would just drive prices up higher than their already inflated level punishing the customers of the company or at least the company that replaces them.
What I would suggest: Put the CEO, the board of directors, and any other executive management you can find responsible in jail while at the same time seizing all of their gains while working for the company, plus a hefty personal fine as well. Seize the shares of the company and divide the shares equally amongst the employees themselves. This would make the bulk of the executive management of the company (the people who write the policies, procedures, etc.) financially and criminally responsible for their actions, make investors (or the people who own the company) less willing to invest in companies that might violate the constitution, while at the same time giving an incentive for the employees of the company to come forward with evidence to convict their soon-to-be former bosses.
Plus the excuse of not knowing what the law is is not a valid excuse either. It is your duty as an american citizen to know the laws and constitution of the United States. It is your duty as a citizen of your home state to know the laws and constitution of your state. etc.
Otherwise, the easiest way out of a murder charge would be "But I didn't know it was murder!"
Honestly...Let these guys fry. They are a big corporation. They have horde's of lawyers. They know exactly what the law said they could and could not do and they did it anyway. Fine the corporation a few billion dollars to make them think twice about violating the constitution again...That will make the stock holders take notice, and suddenly the CEO and board of directors is on the chopping block...I bet you that changes will come around REAL quick then.
I don't know what you are talking about on the hybrids. Toyota gives an 8 year/100,000 mile warranty on anything relating to the hybrid technology, including the big battery (see http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2006/prius/faq.html question 17). Plus the fact that since the introduction of the Toyota Prius, (and i'm pretty sure any other Hybrid vehicle) they haven't had to replace a single one of the batteries.
Also, consider this: If everyone in America were to go out and buy a hybrid vehicle then, overnight, the amount of oil that we consume as a country would drop so significantly that the price of oil would plummet to less than 1/2 of what it currently is.
So, not only do you use about 1/2 the gas, gas would cost about 1/2 the price: this means (given the best case scenario of everyone driving a hybrid) that the actual amount saved would be significantly more than what is actually realized today...You'd have to double the savings...That's $6,000 in 3 years (according to your own numbers).
But also why only stop at 3 years...I don't know about you, but I believe that your average car's life will span more than 3 years...infact on the prius, the power train gets 5 years coverage...so, over the WARRANTIED LIFE of the car, you are saving $5,000 (by your calculation of $1000 per year). If you treat a car with the proper care you should, then the life of the car can easily go up to 10 years before requiring repairs that are worth more than the car itself...This would put savings at $10,000. To top it all off, The prius and most of the other hybrid models currently available have all earned consumer reports highest possible rating for overall reliability...which makes the possibility of your car lasting 10 years all the more likely.
Finally: The price of oil has hardly remained stable in the last 4-5 years...The price of oil has only climbed at an alarming rate. Some analysts predict that oil could possibly reach $100 per barrel in the not-to-distant future...This would put a gallon of gas at about $5...The more oil grows, the more savings a hybrid car will yield...and all predictions point to oil and gas just getting more and more expensive.
I don't know about you, but my next car purchase is most definitely going to be a hybrid vehicle of one kind or another...most likely the prius.
Note: I do happen to like the prius very much right now, so that may be affecting my judgment, but I do believe my analysis to be sound either way.
I think many people are missing another important protection of copyright: It's the ability to control what people can do to your work.
The major benefit of copyright is that you get to charge for your work. But another benefit of it is that you get to control how it's distributed and what is done to your work.
Fair use will allow you to modify the copyrighted work, as long as you don't redistribute that work.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#The_exclus ive_rights_of_the_copyright_holder):
"Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:
* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
* to import or export the work
* to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
* to perform or display the work publicly
* to sell or assign these rights to others"
Basically, copyright law stipulates that ONLY the copyright holder has the right to create derivative works. Since these people were creating derivative works and doing so in a commercial manner, then they have violated copyright law.
Many have also said that "well, the movie studio is getting paid just the same, so what's the big deal?" Well the big deal comes in at the point where those modified movies might get shown to others who might like the questionable material. For example: If you were to buy a modified version of a movie and only you were to watch it, then I doubt they would have any problem...this is the same as just fast forwarding through the objectionable parts of the movie. But if you were to say show that movie to a group of friends, or sell that movie on eBay, then suddenly your derivative work is affecting another's opinions of the work.
What if the derivation was enough to change the opinion from good to bad? Then suddenly that person may not go out and buy a copy of the DVD. Or they might tell others that the movie was bad and that would affect the buying decisions of others...those others might then tell even more people that they "heard the movie was bad"...so on and so forth. If the editing companies change the movie enough make it a bad movie that would have otherwise been thought of as a good movie, then I can see why the movie studios might have a problem with it.
The other reason that movie producers may have a problem is artistic integrity. Imagine if you were a painter and you painted a nude person. What if someone bought prints of your work, and then took a black magic marker to the naughty bits and started reselling those prints. I think most painters would be pretty offended at the idea....and really steamed if someone actually did it. The same thing applies to movies as well...producers, directors, etc. pour years of their lives in to each of the movies they create, and if someone who spends just a few hours arbitrarily cutting out scenes that might contain important subtleties that might contribute significantly to the story.
The reason it's different with music is because the artists themselves typically create the derivative works. They can use their own judgment to determine what is best for their own works. Plus editing out a few swear words in a CD is a lot simpler and less expensive than reshooting entire scenes of a movie or having to do significant script rewrites to portray the same message without the objectionable material...if you did this with movies, you couple potentially be looking at millions of dollars to re do everything correctly.
These scenarios are why copyright law grants exclusive rights to a derivative work and it's also why I support the movie studios in their decisions to not allow these companies to create derivative works.
The problem is that people are doing this without the consent of the movie studios. Copyright law is pretty clear on this: You aren't allowed to sell a copyrighted work, or use a copyrighted work in a commercial manner without the copyright owner's permission.
Now, if they were to provide the service for free, that would be one thing, but they are charging money to sell and rent these modified version of the copyrighted work without the studio's permission... Whether or not a studio would have a problem with that is not for them, or us, to decide. The only people who get to decide are the movie studios and they can decide for any reason they want to allow or deny them to do that.
Imagine how a painter would feel if you bought his painting of a nude woman, and then used black paint to cover up her naughty parts and then resold it. Almost every artist you could talk to would be absolutely mortified that their works that they pour their heart and soul in to would be changed like that.
Aye,
I registered my iPod, and I also got a letter from the lawyers that contained the claim form.
Those product registration forms do more than JUST put your name in a marketing database. They also put you on mailing lists for product recalls in the event of dangerous or defective products, or they put you on mailing lists for class action settlements like this:)
For those who are going to complain about being put in a marketing database and getting junk calls, just check the box that tells them not to contact you, if it has one. If it doesn't have one, then you'll either have to give up the marketing info, or pay the price by not being notified.
I am assuming you are living in the UK, however, I've heard in the rumor mills that the USA FCC is working on forcing the cable and satelite TV companies to "un bundle" the TV channels, so people can pay only so much per channel, and not have to order all the channels in order to get the 2-7 that they really want to watch....But of course the cable and sat companies are going to fight this to the death also.
Slashdot Mirror
and if their computer doesnt have a CD burner, then it's very cheap to get one...I think I saw one free in a specially marked box of cereal.
Except for the fact that you can just burn the song and re-rip it and play it on your zune just fine and dandy.
If the music industry gets it's way, then the content producers could sue the cable companies for distributing DVR products...Say goodbye to Tivo...MythTV...etc.
I sincerely hope this makes it's way to the supreme court and then they get smacked down and told to STFU.
Easy...Just wire the money through several banks, in several countries on several continents (be sure to include a few countries that aren't very friendly to outside law enforcement). They would be jumping through legal hoops for YEARS in order track the money...if they ever could.
Isn't this what trusted computing is supposed to protect against? If you have a secure channel between your keyboard and your browser, and the browser's memory is protected, then a keylogger simply wouldn't be able to grab your password or secure ID token.
As much as we might not like trusted computing, as far as the DRM implications are concerned, it does have some legit and very useful applications...especially in thwarting phishing attacks like this.
energy prices are only going to up. Sure they may have their day-to-day fluctuations based on stupid little factors like the weather...but in the long term, they are going up.
Especially when all the oil dries up.
Plus then your surplus energy would be helping to make the rest of the power grid greener. Since all of your energy is 100% green, if you help to power a couple other homes for a while, then they use more green power, and less dirty power.
If enough people do this, then a significant portion of people who don't have a green power system would be using at least some green energy. That could go a long way to helping reduce emissions from coal and oil plants since they will be burning less fuels.
true....right now it is outrageously expensive...but as the technology develops, prices come down
...Once the panels and other required equipment are produced on a large enough scale, prices will come down further.
Once the price of oil gets so high (because we've tapped the wells dry) and the cost to produce energy using the conventional methods becomes high enough...
Right now, every solar job is a custom job, so prices are high. Once it becomes mass produced and mass marketed, you might start to see entire systems ready to go for about $20,000. (i'm just pulling a number out of the air).
Same thing happened with every new technology...computers used to cost a million dollars apiece back when each one was a custom job. Now you can get a mass produced POS for $250, including a monitor, that is a million times faster than the $1 million dollar computer.
Just give it some time.
I know that there are costs involved in producing music...just as there are costs in producing movies...however, the costs involved are on a MUCH larger scale in movies as they are in music.
Now, before you say that i'm being hypocritical, let me explain:
The digital distribution era has made the old way of doing things obsolete. As you said, for a couple of grand, someone can setup a recording studio and put together a pretty decent album. The problem starts with the record companies.
The record companies sign the artists, front the very large amount of money it takes (under the old system) to record an album , and promotes and distributes the album. The contracts that the artists sign say that the artist gets so much money per album sold...usually around a dollar...only problem is that most of those contracts also stipulate that the artist doesn't see a dime until their $1 per album that they are supposed to get has paid for every single cost that the record company has incurred...from the recording, to the promotion, to the packaging and distribution...from what i've read, except for the HUGE pop artists, most artists would be lucky to see $100k from an album from the record sales...and how many artists release more than a couple of albums? Very few.
Under the old distribution system, the exchange was pretty simple: The artist gave the record company the rights to sell their album in exchange for the promotion. The record companies had a monopoly on the distribution channels...If you were an artist, you didn't get any publicity unless you went to a record company. So the artist got their name out there, and then they were free to exploit that publicity...in the form of concerts, merchandise, public appearances, endorsements, etc...which almost every artist does in one form or another since they make very little, if anything at all, from the sales of their albums.
Okay...now flash forward to today...the internet has sparked self distribution...Now for a couple of thousand dollars, someone can setup a website, produce their own album, and get free publicity on the internet by GIVING away the music. Oh, by the way, if you like the music, buy our CD direct from the source, or get a t-shirt, bumper sticker, poster, or come see us perform!
So...you may now ask what's the difference between the music and movie industries: It's simple...obsolescence. As you've said...you can produce a pretty professional album with a few thousand dollars, and enough time and dedication to make it work...assuming your music is good. Suddenly there is no need for all those people to be working on an album. The times in the music industry have changed...it's time for them to find a new line of work...these modern day candle stick makers are being put out of business by today's light bulb.
When you compare it to the movie industry: It's just not possible to produce a feature length film with only a few thousand dollars...even Memento, which was a great indie film with practically zero special effects and all using no name (at the time) actors cost $9 million...according to wikipedia.
So...lets compare: Cost to produce a low budget album: $5,000. Cost to produce a low budget movie: $9,000,000...cost difference: 1,800%. Cost of album on iTunes: $10. Cost of movie on iTunes: $10-$15. Cost difference: 0%-50%. Something just doesn't add up here.
So, the way I see it: I support the artists/actors, and the people who are truly needed to produce a work. All you need to produce an album is the artists time, and a few thousand dollars in costs to get it recorded...Artists can (and have) distribute/promote their music free over the internet, myspace, etc. They can sell their songs on iTunes using that indie music label (can't think of their name right now). They can use companies like cafe press, or even just have merchandise printed and sell directly using paypal and a $20/mo web hosting account.
The point: Artist can (and have) produce, distribute, and prom
anyone else notice that as the size of hard drives get bigger, that the relational size of EVERYTHING else gets bigger? OS, programs, documents, etc. It used to be you could fit a couple dozen word documents on a 1.44mb floppy...now you'll be lucky if your 4 page, all text, word document will fit on a floppy disk. ...but I guess that doesn't matter since we all have 1gb flash drives now :-D
This doesn't get the actors, writers, camera operators, musicians, and the other countless number of people that it actually takes to produce a movie paid. This is one of the reasons why I don't pirate movies...too many people involved who won't get paid...people who are actually VERY important to the production. Music on the other hand...only person i'm screwing is an obsolete record company executive...BFD.
You are right, fun is subjective. But it is also possible to generalize it as well: ex: Going to an amusement park is fun! Getting stabbed in the eye is not fun. Sure...you will find (very) few people who enjoy getting stabbed in the eye...but in general, it's not fun. Same with an amusement park...you will find some people who don't find them fun. But in general...most people enjoy an amusement park, and most people don't enjoy getting stabbed in the eye. Same with the Wii and PS3. Not to say that the PS3 isn't fun...Most people just haven't found it $500 worth of fun. And I do believe it is safe to say that most people, especially your average Joe, would consider the Wii to be more fun to play than the PS3. Combine the fact that most people find the Wii more fun to play, with it being less than 1/2 the price of the PS3, and the games are cheaper...it's a no brainer for most.
Surprise Surprise! They aren't selling any consoles that are too expensive for people to be able to afford!
and they wonder why the Wii (which is twice as fun and half the price) is kicking their asses. Or why the 360, which is just as much fun and still almost 1/2 the price, is kicking their asses.
People just aren't convinced to buy in to their blueray premium.
The Wii has better game play...especially for beginners. And the 360 blows anything out of the water for online play.
Sony is Japanese for Evil.
What about depressed communities where there are more people who want work than there are jobs? Everyone has to work in order to put food on the table. But if you live in a geographical area that has been hit hard by changing times, then your only choice might be a workat a place that is hazardous to your health.
These people need to have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs just like everyone else. People do some crazy things when they are down and out...prostitution, bank robberies, etc. I would say that "choosing" to work in a smoke filled bar is a much better decision that many of the alternatives...but you have to realize that it's probably the best, and in may cases, the only decision that someone may have.
You should also note that the people forced to work in these situations are also going to be same exact people who don't have any health insurance...and therefor they _ESPECIALLY_ need our support to stay healthy.
Remember that old saying "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Notice how life comes first and pursuit of happiness comes last? Someone's right to their life/health far trumps someone else's right to smoke (happiness)...especially when that person pursuing happiness can do so in the privacy of their own home where it won't affect others.
FTFA: "The real-time tracking would only occur for those who have agreed to be located and had given the user their mobile phone numbers." So you have to agree to be tracked in the first place.
FTA: "Using the phones' built-in GPS satellite technology, the Boost Loopt service could alert users whenever their friends are within a half-mile to 25 miles."
It looks like you can set it anywhere from 1/2 mile to 25 mile radius.
There is actually an ATM by my house that dispenses all bills AND change...You can actually ask for $36.92...and you'll get:
1 x $20
1 x $10
1 x $5
1 x $1
3 x $0.25
1 x $0.10
1 x $0.05
2 x $0.01
It's crazy...
FTA:
"We've already talked about it, there's no chance we're buying a PS3 at launch. That's Grade-A bullshit."
Ouch. According to Joystiq, the room erupted in cheers and applause at the answer
Not only did they say they weren't going to buy the PS3 at launch, they also said that the PS3 is total bullshit, and then everyone in the room started cheering at them for it.
"I say the consequence for violating the constitution should be stiffer than anything corrupt officials can impose--say, complete and utter destruction of the corporation. Collaborate with corrupt government officials in an unconstitutional act? Fine. You aren't a corporation anymore. Everyone is fired, the assets are auctioned off and the proceeds (after all the corporation's debts are paid) goes to the shareholders."
I think this is entirely wrong. You are punishing the wrong people:
By saying the corporation no longer exists and firing everyone you are simply putting countless thousands of INNOCENT people out of a job (the people who maintain the lines, the customer service reps, the secretaries who do nothing but file papers all day, etc...the every day people who work 9-5).
By auctioning off the assets and giving the proceeds to the shareholders you do not punish the very people who should be...the people who own the company. These people will just take there money and invest it elsewhere only caring about making more money and not about any constitutional ethics.
And the last thing America needs is LESS competition in the telecommunications industry...This would just drive prices up higher than their already inflated level punishing the customers of the company or at least the company that replaces them.
What I would suggest: Put the CEO, the board of directors, and any other executive management you can find responsible in jail while at the same time seizing all of their gains while working for the company, plus a hefty personal fine as well. Seize the shares of the company and divide the shares equally amongst the employees themselves. This would make the bulk of the executive management of the company (the people who write the policies, procedures, etc.) financially and criminally responsible for their actions, make investors (or the people who own the company) less willing to invest in companies that might violate the constitution, while at the same time giving an incentive for the employees of the company to come forward with evidence to convict their soon-to-be former bosses.
Plus the excuse of not knowing what the law is is not a valid excuse either. It is your duty as an american citizen to know the laws and constitution of the United States. It is your duty as a citizen of your home state to know the laws and constitution of your state. etc. Otherwise, the easiest way out of a murder charge would be "But I didn't know it was murder!" Honestly...Let these guys fry. They are a big corporation. They have horde's of lawyers. They know exactly what the law said they could and could not do and they did it anyway. Fine the corporation a few billion dollars to make them think twice about violating the constitution again...That will make the stock holders take notice, and suddenly the CEO and board of directors is on the chopping block...I bet you that changes will come around REAL quick then.
I don't know what you are talking about on the hybrids. Toyota gives an 8 year/100,000 mile warranty on anything relating to the hybrid technology, including the big battery (see http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2006/prius/faq.html question 17). Plus the fact that since the introduction of the Toyota Prius, (and i'm pretty sure any other Hybrid vehicle) they haven't had to replace a single one of the batteries.
Also, consider this: If everyone in America were to go out and buy a hybrid vehicle then, overnight, the amount of oil that we consume as a country would drop so significantly that the price of oil would plummet to less than 1/2 of what it currently is.
So, not only do you use about 1/2 the gas, gas would cost about 1/2 the price: this means (given the best case scenario of everyone driving a hybrid) that the actual amount saved would be significantly more than what is actually realized today...You'd have to double the savings...That's $6,000 in 3 years (according to your own numbers).
But also why only stop at 3 years...I don't know about you, but I believe that your average car's life will span more than 3 years...infact on the prius, the power train gets 5 years coverage...so, over the WARRANTIED LIFE of the car, you are saving $5,000 (by your calculation of $1000 per year). If you treat a car with the proper care you should, then the life of the car can easily go up to 10 years before requiring repairs that are worth more than the car itself...This would put savings at $10,000. To top it all off, The prius and most of the other hybrid models currently available have all earned consumer reports highest possible rating for overall reliability...which makes the possibility of your car lasting 10 years all the more likely.
Finally: The price of oil has hardly remained stable in the last 4-5 years...The price of oil has only climbed at an alarming rate. Some analysts predict that oil could possibly reach $100 per barrel in the not-to-distant future...This would put a gallon of gas at about $5...The more oil grows, the more savings a hybrid car will yield...and all predictions point to oil and gas just getting more and more expensive.
I don't know about you, but my next car purchase is most definitely going to be a hybrid vehicle of one kind or another...most likely the prius.
Note: I do happen to like the prius very much right now, so that may be affecting my judgment, but I do believe my analysis to be sound either way.
I think many people are missing another important protection of copyright: It's the ability to control what people can do to your work.
s ive_rights_of_the_copyright_holder):
The major benefit of copyright is that you get to charge for your work. But another benefit of it is that you get to control how it's distributed and what is done to your work.
Fair use will allow you to modify the copyrighted work, as long as you don't redistribute that work.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#The_exclu
"Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:
* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
* to import or export the work
* to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
* to perform or display the work publicly
* to sell or assign these rights to others"
Basically, copyright law stipulates that ONLY the copyright holder has the right to create derivative works. Since these people were creating derivative works and doing so in a commercial manner, then they have violated copyright law.
Many have also said that "well, the movie studio is getting paid just the same, so what's the big deal?" Well the big deal comes in at the point where those modified movies might get shown to others who might like the questionable material. For example: If you were to buy a modified version of a movie and only you were to watch it, then I doubt they would have any problem...this is the same as just fast forwarding through the objectionable parts of the movie. But if you were to say show that movie to a group of friends, or sell that movie on eBay, then suddenly your derivative work is affecting another's opinions of the work.
What if the derivation was enough to change the opinion from good to bad? Then suddenly that person may not go out and buy a copy of the DVD. Or they might tell others that the movie was bad and that would affect the buying decisions of others...those others might then tell even more people that they "heard the movie was bad"...so on and so forth. If the editing companies change the movie enough make it a bad movie that would have otherwise been thought of as a good movie, then I can see why the movie studios might have a problem with it.
The other reason that movie producers may have a problem is artistic integrity. Imagine if you were a painter and you painted a nude person. What if someone bought prints of your work, and then took a black magic marker to the naughty bits and started reselling those prints. I think most painters would be pretty offended at the idea....and really steamed if someone actually did it. The same thing applies to movies as well...producers, directors, etc. pour years of their lives in to each of the movies they create, and if someone who spends just a few hours arbitrarily cutting out scenes that might contain important subtleties that might contribute significantly to the story.
The reason it's different with music is because the artists themselves typically create the derivative works. They can use their own judgment to determine what is best for their own works. Plus editing out a few swear words in a CD is a lot simpler and less expensive than reshooting entire scenes of a movie or having to do significant script rewrites to portray the same message without the objectionable material...if you did this with movies, you couple potentially be looking at millions of dollars to re do everything correctly.
These scenarios are why copyright law grants exclusive rights to a derivative work and it's also why I support the movie studios in their decisions to not allow these companies to create derivative works.
The problem is that people are doing this without the consent of the movie studios. Copyright law is pretty clear on this: You aren't allowed to sell a copyrighted work, or use a copyrighted work in a commercial manner without the copyright owner's permission.
Now, if they were to provide the service for free, that would be one thing, but they are charging money to sell and rent these modified version of the copyrighted work without the studio's permission... Whether or not a studio would have a problem with that is not for them, or us, to decide. The only people who get to decide are the movie studios and they can decide for any reason they want to allow or deny them to do that.
Imagine how a painter would feel if you bought his painting of a nude woman, and then used black paint to cover up her naughty parts and then resold it. Almost every artist you could talk to would be absolutely mortified that their works that they pour their heart and soul in to would be changed like that.
Aye, I registered my iPod, and I also got a letter from the lawyers that contained the claim form.
:)
Those product registration forms do more than JUST put your name in a marketing database. They also put you on mailing lists for product recalls in the event of dangerous or defective products, or they put you on mailing lists for class action settlements like this
For those who are going to complain about being put in a marketing database and getting junk calls, just check the box that tells them not to contact you, if it has one. If it doesn't have one, then you'll either have to give up the marketing info, or pay the price by not being notified.
I am assuming you are living in the UK, however, I've heard in the rumor mills that the USA FCC is working on forcing the cable and satelite TV companies to "un bundle" the TV channels, so people can pay only so much per channel, and not have to order all the channels in order to get the 2-7 that they really want to watch. ...But of course the cable and sat companies are going to fight this to the death also.