Actually, those 'unreliable' wind generators are being improved upon. In northern Michigan they are developing hybrid wind/natural gas plants - both which are available in great supply. When the wind dies down, the gas plant turns on to supplement the supply. I think the first setup will be about a 10 Megawatt plant with 10-20 wind turbines towering 250 feet above the farms. It also happens to be at a natural gas pipeline junction for the area.
It's not constitutional and will never withstand a court case challenging it.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Ok, apparently you just don't get it. Just because she lost the case based on her fair use defense does not mean she did so because she 'downloaded' the files. Also, basing your opinion on a link to a Wikipedia article that only discusses the Appellate court decision, but not the lower court case is far fetched. It seems odd that the wiki article does not link to the lower court decision actually. Wikipedia can also be manipulated - I'm fairly sure the RIAA actively does so too.
In fact if you read the actual full appellate decision, it is filled with inaccuracies and an obvious RIAA slant. Since there really has not been many cases where the RIAA has actually won beyond an out of court sealed settlements, considering the trillions of cases of downloading - you can hardly consider this proof that downloading is illegal. It's merely an opinion that is partially valid in the 7th circuit when based on a fair use defense.
It states things like Music sales are down 30%. They're not - it's RIAA propaganda, albeit it could be true that the sales of RIAA music may be down or CD sales are down, considering the crap coming out of the RIAA based music industry these days - overall music sales have been increasing steadily every year.
It states: "Licensed Internet sellers, such as the iTunes Music Store, offer samples—but again they pay authors a fee for the right to do so, and the teasers are just a portion of the original." This is also untrue - iTunes does not pay me one dime for letting people listen to 30 second samples of my music and they don't pay the record labels for this either. (Yes, I have music on iTunes, Amazon, Napster, emusic and many other stores - I understand what they pay for very well). STREAMS are paid though (a pitiful 1 cent or less per stream), but iTunes does not offer streaming.
There still is no LAW making downloading illegal. Distributing copies is the only illegal issue that is stated in the law. If it was illegal, would the RIAA not also be breaking the law merely catching these supposed infringers? They are, after all, downloading a piece of a an unauthorized copy of a file right in order to obtain 'evidence'?
Copying is also still legal btw - as I can still copy my CDs to my MP3 player with zero fear of breaking a law.
Music fans have an ever increasing appetite for more music. It’s just that they consume it differently than in years past. Rather than buying a CD at the local music store, fans now look for a different consumption experience. They go to MySpace to directly connect with artists they love, watch videos on YouTube, purchase a few tracks on Amazon, build streaming radio stations to find similar tunes at Pandora, and more.
According to IFPI and Neilsen more music is being sold.
Here's some Neilsen stats...
NIELSEN INFO
2006
US Music Purchases exceed 1 billion, growth in overall music purchases exceeds 19%
Digital sales increase 65% from 2005
2007
US Music Purchases exceed 1.4 billion, growth in overall music purchases exceeds 14%
Digital music sales account for 23% of music purchases
2008
US Music purchases exceed 1.5 bilion, growth in overall music purchases exceeds 10%
Digital music sales account for 32% of music purchases
2009
US Music Purchases up 2.1% over 2008. Music sales exceeded 1.5 billion for the second consecutive year.
Digital music sales account for 40% of total US purchases.
Consider also the simultaneous increasing revenues from live music, now considered an artist's primary revenue source - but that's just getting farther off topic.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Notice nowhere in the law does it say that RECEIVING a copy is illegal - only making the copy. The person hosting the torrent is the one making the copy you download - not you.
Now with the mere fact that once you download it and SHARE it, you become a distributor - that's where you are breaking the law.
Remove the P2P aspect where you download it from a link or an FTP server - you are legally safe. The person hosting the file though is still breaking the law.
I never said that was a defense.
I said that's not the legal issue. Downloading a file is not illegal - sharing it is the illegal part because it is distribution.
You're right - it is not black and white. But the fact remains, there still is no law making it illegal to download a file.
The RIAA does not nail you for downloading a file from them or anyone else. They nail you when they download a piece of the file FROM your torrent on your PC. They catch you 'distributing' a copy.
That's the difference, otherwise it would be illegal for the RIAA to download that piece of the file from your torrent.
It's not illegal to hit 'copy' on a Xerox - in fact you can copy anything you want on the Xerox at the library. They won't stop you and you won't get arrested for it.
The illegal act is distribution - that is the only law being broken - making a copy and giving it away or distributing it to others.
Actually - it IS NOT illegal to download anything. Stop trying to distort the truth.
It does not say that anywhere in this judgement and it does not say that anywhere in the law. The issue is distribution - not downloading.
The only illegal issue is the 'unauthorized distribution' as in uploading or sharing copyrighted files with others without authorization from the copyright owners.
There is nothing wrong with downloading a file to check it out. It is no different than opening a magazine to see if you want to buy it at the store. You are not stealing the magazine, you're just looking at it.
Photocopying the magazine AND giving it to someone else would be illegal though - get it?
It's also great with services like My Circle where you get 10 free phone numbers on your cell plan. Add your Google Voice number, tell Google Voice to display the Voice Caller ID rather than the caller and have Google Voice forward all calls to your cell.
Unlimited free incoming calls....
I'd have to agree completely with this statement. It does feel snappier, and to know it's using 17% less power is making me smile too.
It's justification enough right there to upgrade the other 3 PCs in my house. That alone will save me $15-$20 a month on the electric bill.
Tunecore only charges you 99 cents to add iTunes distribution for an album.
It's only 99 cents per store actually and you can also put it into Rhapsody, Napster, eMusic, Amazon MP3 and a half dozen other digital distribution stores.
The $31 charge is actually comprised of a $20 flat setup fee for the album per year, plus 99 cents per track (10 tracks avg) and 99 cents for the digital distribution store.
Tunecore does not keep a dime of what you earn from the online stores, after you pay the initial fee, unlike CDBaby which takes a percentage of all digital sales on top of their setup fees.
iTunes pays 70 cents per track sold to the artist who uses Tunecore to distribute their music.
Windows 7 after Vista is nothing more than Windows ME was a revision of Windows 98.
It's just window dressing with necessary fixes to a failed OS release.
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually looking forward to a better Vista in 7 - as is the rest of the world who still has to rely on Windows for whatever reason.
Wait a second.
These guys work for us. They are there because we put them there. They should READ THE BILLS themselves, whether they want to or not - it is their job.
Do I get a staff of 20 people to read all my work for me?
Do you?
They need to do the job they are paid for and read every single bill, every single word - ALOUD for the record and C-Span.
I'd suggest NASA get started on an 'effective' PR department then, because if everyone doesn't know what you have planned in more detail - nobody is going to continue to support your efforts.
Yea, that really pissed me off too.
No 64bit beta support means no chance of me even bothering with them after beta.
Re:That's what you get... for not using FedEx
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at a postal rate schedule - the postal service does provide them for all shipping services with clearly marked zones to figure out how much to pay for postage.
Opinion is not libel. In fact - from the summary: "The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'"
The key point here is that the poster described it as one of the dirtiest places HE had seen.
In court, the store owner would have to PROVE that the poster was telling a lie. They would also have to prove he had seen many many more dirty shops - an impossibility.
You can't prove an opinion though, as everything is in the eye of the beholder. If he instead had said there were rats climbing through the donut holes and feces on the windows (when there were not) then he would have a case. Simply saying he thought the place was unsanitary is only an opinion.
You have the right to think whatever you want, as long as you don't make things up to support your opinion. If he had made up supporting facts for his argument, then they might have a case for libel and to disclose the identity of the poster, but it doesn't seem like he can meet that burden.
IANAL
Printing would be a space issue as well as the varying qualities of print sources, commercial or otherwise.
It seems odd that nobody mentioned microfilm though, the libraries and newspapers have been using it for far more than 25 years and would surely be able to retrieve from it in the future. In fact retrieval will probably be even easier with advances in scanning technology.
It saves space and could easily be saved in a smaller and more optimum storage container within the capsule to prevent decay.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep
Even PayPal doesn't support Chrome. You can't print PayPal shipping labels at all with that browser - very annoying (to me at least).
It's "Whoosh" :)
Actually, those 'unreliable' wind generators are being improved upon. In northern Michigan they are developing hybrid wind/natural gas plants - both which are available in great supply. When the wind dies down, the gas plant turns on to supplement the supply. I think the first setup will be about a 10 Megawatt plant with 10-20 wind turbines towering 250 feet above the farms. It also happens to be at a natural gas pipeline junction for the area.
It's not constitutional and will never withstand a court case challenging it.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Ok, apparently you just don't get it. Just because she lost the case based on her fair use defense does not mean she did so because she 'downloaded' the files. Also, basing your opinion on a link to a Wikipedia article that only discusses the Appellate court decision, but not the lower court case is far fetched. It seems odd that the wiki article does not link to the lower court decision actually. Wikipedia can also be manipulated - I'm fairly sure the RIAA actively does so too.
In fact if you read the actual full appellate decision, it is filled with inaccuracies and an obvious RIAA slant. Since there really has not been many cases where the RIAA has actually won beyond an out of court sealed settlements, considering the trillions of cases of downloading - you can hardly consider this proof that downloading is illegal. It's merely an opinion that is partially valid in the 7th circuit when based on a fair use defense.
It states things like Music sales are down 30%. They're not - it's RIAA propaganda, albeit it could be true that the sales of RIAA music may be down or CD sales are down, considering the crap coming out of the RIAA based music industry these days - overall music sales have been increasing steadily every year.
It states: "Licensed Internet sellers, such as the iTunes Music Store, offer samples—but again they pay authors a fee for the right to do so, and the teasers are just a portion of the original." This is also untrue - iTunes does not pay me one dime for letting people listen to 30 second samples of my music and they don't pay the record labels for this either. (Yes, I have music on iTunes, Amazon, Napster, emusic and many other stores - I understand what they pay for very well). STREAMS are paid though (a pitiful 1 cent or less per stream), but iTunes does not offer streaming.
There still is no LAW making downloading illegal. Distributing copies is the only illegal issue that is stated in the law. If it was illegal, would the RIAA not also be breaking the law merely catching these supposed infringers? They are, after all, downloading a piece of a an unauthorized copy of a file right in order to obtain 'evidence'?
Copying is also still legal btw - as I can still copy my CDs to my MP3 player with zero fear of breaking a law.
Music fans have an ever increasing appetite for more music. It’s just that they consume it differently than in years past. Rather than buying a CD at the local music store, fans now look for a different consumption experience. They go to MySpace to directly connect with artists they love, watch videos on YouTube, purchase a few tracks on Amazon, build streaming radio stations to find similar tunes at Pandora, and more.
According to IFPI and Neilsen more music is being sold.
Here's some Neilsen stats...
NIELSEN INFO
2006
US Music Purchases exceed 1 billion, growth in overall music purchases exceeds 19%
Digital sales increase 65% from 2005
2007
US Music Purchases exceed 1.4 billion, growth in overall music purchases exceeds 14%
Digital music sales account for 23% of music purchases
2008
US Music purchases exceed 1.5 bilion, growth in overall music purchases exceeds 10%
Digital music sales account for 32% of music purchases
2009
US Music Purchases up 2.1% over 2008. Music sales exceeded 1.5 billion for the second consecutive year.
Digital music sales account for 40% of total US purchases.
Consider also the simultaneous increasing revenues from live music, now considered an artist's primary revenue source - but that's just getting farther off topic.
Show me one quote anywhere in the law where it says 'downloading' is illegal. It does not exist - every single law is related to distribution.
Based on your link:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Notice nowhere in the law does it say that RECEIVING a copy is illegal - only making the copy. The person hosting the torrent is the one making the copy you download - not you.
Now with the mere fact that once you download it and SHARE it, you become a distributor - that's where you are breaking the law.
Remove the P2P aspect where you download it from a link or an FTP server - you are legally safe. The person hosting the file though is still breaking the law.
I never said that was a defense. I said that's not the legal issue. Downloading a file is not illegal - sharing it is the illegal part because it is distribution.
You're right - it is not black and white. But the fact remains, there still is no law making it illegal to download a file. The RIAA does not nail you for downloading a file from them or anyone else. They nail you when they download a piece of the file FROM your torrent on your PC. They catch you 'distributing' a copy. That's the difference, otherwise it would be illegal for the RIAA to download that piece of the file from your torrent. It's not illegal to hit 'copy' on a Xerox - in fact you can copy anything you want on the Xerox at the library. They won't stop you and you won't get arrested for it. The illegal act is distribution - that is the only law being broken - making a copy and giving it away or distributing it to others.
Actually - it IS NOT illegal to download anything. Stop trying to distort the truth. It does not say that anywhere in this judgement and it does not say that anywhere in the law. The issue is distribution - not downloading. The only illegal issue is the 'unauthorized distribution' as in uploading or sharing copyrighted files with others without authorization from the copyright owners. There is nothing wrong with downloading a file to check it out. It is no different than opening a magazine to see if you want to buy it at the store. You are not stealing the magazine, you're just looking at it. Photocopying the magazine AND giving it to someone else would be illegal though - get it?
It's also great with services like My Circle where you get 10 free phone numbers on your cell plan. Add your Google Voice number, tell Google Voice to display the Voice Caller ID rather than the caller and have Google Voice forward all calls to your cell. Unlimited free incoming calls....
I'd have to agree completely with this statement. It does feel snappier, and to know it's using 17% less power is making me smile too. It's justification enough right there to upgrade the other 3 PCs in my house. That alone will save me $15-$20 a month on the electric bill.
Tunecore only charges you 99 cents to add iTunes distribution for an album. It's only 99 cents per store actually and you can also put it into Rhapsody, Napster, eMusic, Amazon MP3 and a half dozen other digital distribution stores. The $31 charge is actually comprised of a $20 flat setup fee for the album per year, plus 99 cents per track (10 tracks avg) and 99 cents for the digital distribution store. Tunecore does not keep a dime of what you earn from the online stores, after you pay the initial fee, unlike CDBaby which takes a percentage of all digital sales on top of their setup fees. iTunes pays 70 cents per track sold to the artist who uses Tunecore to distribute their music.
Cell phones work the same way here in the US too. They switch over to 'Emergency Service Only' status on the screen and only 911 works.
Wasn't Verizon forced to agree to an open device network in order to even bid on this spectrum?
Isn't that what they impeached Clinton for - lieing to congress? Mitch Bainwol needs to sit in jail for a year or two and think about it.
Windows 7 after Vista is nothing more than Windows ME was a revision of Windows 98. It's just window dressing with necessary fixes to a failed OS release. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually looking forward to a better Vista in 7 - as is the rest of the world who still has to rely on Windows for whatever reason.
Wait a second. These guys work for us. They are there because we put them there. They should READ THE BILLS themselves, whether they want to or not - it is their job. Do I get a staff of 20 people to read all my work for me? Do you? They need to do the job they are paid for and read every single bill, every single word - ALOUD for the record and C-Span.
I don't think the primary goal here is capture and prosecution of the controllers, but shutting the botnet down. Shouldn't that be the priority?
I'd suggest NASA get started on an 'effective' PR department then, because if everyone doesn't know what you have planned in more detail - nobody is going to continue to support your efforts.
Yea, that really pissed me off too. No 64bit beta support means no chance of me even bothering with them after beta.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at a postal rate schedule - the postal service does provide them for all shipping services with clearly marked zones to figure out how much to pay for postage.
Opinion is not libel. In fact - from the summary: "The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'" The key point here is that the poster described it as one of the dirtiest places HE had seen. In court, the store owner would have to PROVE that the poster was telling a lie. They would also have to prove he had seen many many more dirty shops - an impossibility. You can't prove an opinion though, as everything is in the eye of the beholder. If he instead had said there were rats climbing through the donut holes and feces on the windows (when there were not) then he would have a case. Simply saying he thought the place was unsanitary is only an opinion. You have the right to think whatever you want, as long as you don't make things up to support your opinion. If he had made up supporting facts for his argument, then they might have a case for libel and to disclose the identity of the poster, but it doesn't seem like he can meet that burden. IANAL
Printing would be a space issue as well as the varying qualities of print sources, commercial or otherwise. It seems odd that nobody mentioned microfilm though, the libraries and newspapers have been using it for far more than 25 years and would surely be able to retrieve from it in the future. In fact retrieval will probably be even easier with advances in scanning technology. It saves space and could easily be saved in a smaller and more optimum storage container within the capsule to prevent decay.