You can't "just buy" the new iPhone. You have to upgrade your phone and account, restarting your 2-year commitment on your iPhone 3G purchase date. You cannot buy the iPhone 3G without proof of AT&T service.
An unnecessary loophole, given that you could just pick one off the shelf and buy it.
Now, it appears as though you will not be able to purchase one without (a) signing up for a new AT&T account or (b) proving the existence of a current iPhone account you will be upgrading to. Since the new iPhone is pretty clearly subsidized, dropping the contract would require return of the iPhone.
Apple doesn't have anything to do with that. AT&T has always allowed customers to upgrade their phones at any time, usually restarting the 2-year contract. However, if you are buying or bringing in unsubsidized hardware, it has been my experience that the contract does not get restarted (and obviously, if you just move your SIM card into a different handset that you've acquired through a third party, there's no change in your contract).
The only way Apple might be involved is in verifying your existing iPhone account at purchase before handing you the box. This seems likely, given the price and the fact that they're obligated to honor their exclusivity agreement (and AT&T, for all its other missteps and poor decisions, has been doing a decent job with providing iPhone customers with service and value-added perks [including rapid expansion of their previously pathetic 3G network]).
Because Starbucks has chosen to cater to a different audience. They've already more or less maximized their customer base, and people don't go to Starbucks for the Wifi. Offering it for free would cost them money and gain them nothing.
Instead, Starbucks has decided to target a different group: business customers. These are people who don't actually pay the $10 connection fee for one-time use; they have Wifi hotspot plans with their Blackberries and iPhones, or their company has access to such a plan. The non-free Wifi providers (T-Mo, AT&T, Boingo or whoever, etc.) don't make most of their money on one-off connections and single day users. Those people will find some place that offers it for free or simply do without it. AT&T has instantly expanded its customer base by giving most of its DSL customers the same, integrated access, as its Mobility users.
The cost is therefore irrelevant, and in exchange, charging users for it acts as a bar to overcrowding as well as maintains a consistent quality of service. Starbucks installations are hefty boxes with commercial-grade switches and gateway hardware, connected to pricey T1 (and in some locations, T3) dedicated backbones. The management costs and service contracts easily add up to something in the $1000/mo range for providing the service, so the provider charges to recoup that, and Starbucks doesn't pay it for everyone because it would be counterproductive.
Business travelers know that they can get reasonably fast, reliable connections by visiting Starbucks. That has increased their sales and the store visits. It's also a welcome service that many places still do not provide. Independent coffee shops with a DSL modem and a D-Link router aren't competitors in the slightest for the customers meant for Starbucks' Wifi connections.
Because in this case C is Bob Barr,which is just as f*cking bad as A or B. So go to Option D. If that doesn't work, and none of the other 20 people running strike your fancy, use the write-in slot. Hell, write in that yard gnome Paul if you want to.
If there's no point to voting, then why not "waste" your vote on the independent candidate anyway? It's the only way anything will ever change.
Instead of lamenting your "two" choices, make use of your ballot to go with Option C. If you don't care which of the two major party candidates gets elected because it's all the same to you, instead of sitting on your ass, throw your vote away on someone you care about. Those numbers can add up. Your conclusions are contradictory. "Why bother voting if you only have two choices?" and "I wish I had a third choice" don't mesh: you DO have a third choice. Not voting at all isn't a form of protest; it's not resignation to a fate out of your hands. It's just lazy.
What difference does it make to you whether the independent candidate has a chance? If there's no point in voting for Corporate Candidate A or B, don't. Candidates have a chance when voters give them a chance. Stop bitching and do something about it. The worst that could happen is that your vote has no impact--but if you don't vote, that's a certainty regardless.
1. Are you human? Yes? You're pushing a political agenda. Anyone asking for apolitical performance is just asking to be lied to. 2. Adversarial system. Jury of peers. Courts don't make careers for attorneys who convict innocent people, and your premise is invalid and unsupported. If you're suggesting that some other metric for DAs other than number of convictions should be used, name it. False positives will happen, but must be balanced against evidentiary failures. Are you now going to turn around and bitch about guilty parties getting off the hook? The simple reality is that there is no fine-tuned granular control that handles both. You just try it sometime, using objective elements and without inferences or generalizations. Half the population is upset about guilty people walking because the evidence isn't there to convict them; the other half is upset because innocent people are implicated by evidence and can't prove their way out of it. There's no win-win.
If you don't think lawyers are driven crazy by both, you don't understand anything at all, let alone the profession. You do the best you can. That's all anyone can ask for. 3. That's why we have a tiered court system. What would be the point of appellate courts if there was never anything to appeal? Your take, unsurprisingly, goes much too far. Chances of success on appeal are slim to none for just about any given case. 4. Seems like an awfully specific beef. Don't like the policy, the law, or the burdens at trial? Challenge them. It's how it works. Is there a natural presumption that the mother is the better parent, all things being equal? Maybe, but it's not created by the courts or any element of the legal system. It's endemic to society.
If you want to say that courts should recognize that instinctive presumption and ignore it, that's one thing, but it comes right back when there's a decision to be made: if the evidence is in equipoise, someone has to make a judgment call. Instinct is going to influence that as much as anything else, and short of a coin flip, there's a reason we put these people on the bench.
Attorneys hate bad judges much more passionately than any random lay person. That's the simple truth. But people only have themselves to blame for it, either for electing them, or for electing people who have no sense when it comes to appointing judges. That's one downside in democratic republics. It's not the fault of the legal system. 5. That's their job. Somebody invariably gets screwed over when there are two sides to an issue. Everyone can't be happy, and generally, the unhappy party will be a citizen. To say it's slanted consistently against one group is foolish at best. 6. Plea bargains don't convict anyone. If you're innocent and you take one, it's your choice, based on the weighing of your own circumstances and must be consistent with your personal convictions. I personally don't see why an innocent person would ever take such a bargain, and have never heard of it happening outside of TV. If you had no information to provide or nothing of value to offer in exchange, why would you even be offered a plea? Life is not much like "Law and Order". Plea bargains aren't usually offered on a whim or as a fishing expedition. 7. Blame your fellow citizens for that invented statistic. 8. How is that the court's fault? People handle divorces however they choose to do so. 9. Such as? 10. You've got to be completely off your rocker if you think that capital cases are anything remotely close to "fast" anything. If you've got no defense to raise and overwhelming evidence against you, yes, the process goes more quickly. It's called efficiency. 11. Such as? 12. Welcome to the real world. Deadlines matter. Controversies must end, and the schedule can't be dragged on forever. With cases taking 2-3 years on a regular basis, without deadlines, there'd never be a decision. Finality is an important element of ju
Yeah. The Titanic was a state of the art, fast ship, featuring new and innovative technology to improve survivability. Nothing is invincible, and the technology wasn't enough to save the ship. Had she avoided the iceberg, she would have gone on to continue to set records.
Put another way, are your servers unreliable after an earthquake causes part of the building to collapse, crushing some of them?
Ships and crews of any reasonably run line sought to be fast and reliable anyhow - because if they weren't, they lost business. Seeking and success are two separate things. All members of all industries endeavour to be efficient, and all the survivors succeed to an adequate degree. This does not affect the relative standing. Competing for the contract was a particular achievement.
Tremendously famous, record-setting ships carried Royal Mail contracts at the height of the era: The Great Eastern (first ship capable of traversing the oceans without refueling), the Great Britain(largest ship in the world in its day), the Oceanic (a watershed ship in ocean liner history), the Lusitania, the Mauretania, the Adriatic, the Titanic and her sister ships, just to name a few.
The mark was undeniably competed for and represented a certain prestige that other ships had to work much harder to earn. As the RMS prefix became associated with the biggest, fastest, and most impressive ships, it grew increasingly valuable to companies hoping to project that image. This actually lowered the previously exorbitant mail carrying charges for steamship transport.
Again, not particularly. All RMS contract ships faced penalties for delays.
Not particularly. Don't be a sore loser. Some of Britain's most famous ships carried the designation, and it absolutely was a mark of quality and an element of competition. Just recently, in fact, the QM2 was granted the right to use the designation in recognition of the proud heritage of ocean liners that precedes her--this is despite the fact that using ships for mail is wholly obsolete.
Unless you can demonstrate any of your bizarre contentions with evidence (which I think the British Postal Museum would be rather interested in), we'll all just take your remarks at face value: glib and vacuous.
You're both correct. RMS means "Royal Mail Ship" and is used by any ship granted a mail-carrying contract. However, in order to earn that contract, the ship and crew traditionally had to be consistently fast and reliable. This was reinforced by relatively hefty penalties for delays (by the minute, I think, in the 19th Century--something rather remarkable considering the slow speed of ships and the unpredictable conditions).
As a result, earning an RMS designation was a mark of great prestige in those days.
The fan owns the copyright to his recording regardless No. Please read 17 USC 106(1,2,3). The fan does not have any right to record the performance without permission from all the relevant copyright holders.
If 2 people take 2 different pictures of the same building, there are 2 different copyrights Only if both photos were lawfully taken to begin with can there be a valid copyright. This is not the issue.
The only way that Prince could be entitled to the copyright on the fan's video is if it were not held in a public place Irrelevant. All events to which tickets are sold are private events by nature, but more importantly, the location of the performance does not alter the rights of the fans wrt distribution of recordings of performances.
Assuming Radiohead actually does own the copyright on the song, they do not have any legal entitlement to the fan video, either.
They have the legal entitlement to demand that the recording be taken down. They also have the legal entitlement to take action against anyone distributing copies to members of the public directly or for sale.
A performance is just that a specific individual performance. It is not fixed. I am not sure what is so difficult to grasp here.
The performance in question was fixed at the time of its performance in a recording.
The fact that Prince gave the performance tonight, doesn't entitle him to any copyright control over recordings made by other people. No one is claiming this is the case.
Now, if you're trying to argue that the arrangement, lyrics, etc are the controlling issue, Prince doesn't own them either - they belong to Radiohead. No. Radiohead does not have a copyright on Prince's arrangement of the song, nor do they have the copyright on any modified lyrics. They have a copyright on their versions, remixes, and others.
The problem is, his performance isn't eligible for copyright protection. For the last time, this is not entirely accurate. NYCL is far from the only attorney on this forum, and popularity notwithstanding, far from the most knowledgeable. It should not be so terribly difficult for you to grasp that once an artist obtains permission to perform someone else's song, absent some other contractual agreement, the covering artist has the copyright to their arrangement, their modified lyrics (if any), and any derivative works. This includes the right to control performances, limit recordings, and issue takedown notices of unauthorized distributions of the same.
Radiohead certainly also has copyright claims to the video, especially since lyrical changes are usually derivative tracks and not covers, so they still have that, but their copyright does not preclude Prince's.
Not quite true. They can with the copyright holder's (i.e. Radiohead's) permission. "Fans do not get to distribute recordings of that performance without permission, explicit or implicit."
Honestly, did you even bother to read?
Only in a "fixed" form, not a performance. Are you unfamiliar with the term "arrangement"? No one is talking about the performance itself.
You won't find any support for that theory in US copyright law. You're quite mistaken, especially since the portion you quoted includes something you unnecessarily and redundantly tried to "correct".
It's a simple observation...one that has gone so far as to become cliché. A little knowledge, as I said, is truly dangerous, because it sets you down the wrong path. It was in no way intended to cause offense; if that was the result, I apologize. In your case, you seem well-adjusted, but for many on this forum, it becomes entrenched and immovable, with unfortunate consequences for the quality of discussion.
The recording made by the fan was not derived from the recording made by Prince and so is not a derivative work of such. Someone other than the fan has the exclusive right to control performances and distribution of recordings. You as a fan cannot seek copyright protection on a work that is not yours--the song, as arranged and performed by Prince, is subject to copyright.
The fan is not permitted to prepare derivative works of the song (because it belongs to Radiohead), or the performance arrangement of Prince (because that belongs to Prince).
What kind of crew Prince had with him makes no difference in US copyright law. Yes, it does. Without a recording crew present, the question of the performance would go back to whether the arrangement itself was fixed. Because there was such an authorized crew present for the purpose of preparing a recording of the performance, this question is irrelevant. Fans do not get to distribute recordings of that performance without permission, explicit or implicit.
You might start by going back and reading the article. The performance in question is fixed. Even absent the video, the arrangement would also likely be fixed.
Unless the work were a spontaneous product of absolutely no prior preparation, which obviously isn't the case in a concert venue, the performance is based on a copyrighted work. Derivative preparations, including recordings, are not for control.
This has nothing to do with copyrighting the act of performance, which no one is talking about. You're clearly struggling with this situation, and not understanding the effects and mechanisms of copyright in this scenario. The performance in question is fixed, and recordings of it do fall under the scope of copyright.
Performance of another party's copyrighted work must be negotiated and licensed. This adds nothing to the discussion.
The performance itself is not itself subject to copyright until that performance is fixed in a tangible form. Precisely as is the case here, according to the article.
If you make a recording of someone's performance, you are the rights holder of that recording. Only if the act of recording it was lawful to begin with.
RTFA. Prince's rendition was recorded in a fixed medium as authorized by Prince. That's the whole nature of this issue--unauthorized derivative recordings.
If there hadn't been a professional recording crew with him, you'd be closer to having a point.
You seem to be confused about my post. I suggest you re-read until it sinks in.
The copyright holder controls who may perform the work, and the terms under which they may do so. They also have the right to derivative preparations (including recordings of that performance). If they transfer or assign those rights, even in a limited fashion, to be shared with another party, that party gets to exercise those rights.
The act of performance is not itself an issue of copyright, but that's unimportant, because that's not the issue here (except as to whether Prince was legally entitled to do so in the first place). The performance may include a derivative arrangement of the music and/or lyrics (and likely does, given the notably different styles of Prince and Radiohead), and that is a matter of copyright.
Not necessarily. It is entirely possible that there is more than one copyright in question here. All it takes is one of those copyrights to be involved for a party to be able to issue a takedown notice.
Prince might well have a copyright to the arrangement he performed, and Radiohead might not necessarily have been the ones to license it, depending on the specifics of each performer's relationship to their labels and to each other.
That sounds a lot more like 'If I write a song, you have to get a license from me to perfom it' That's because that's exactly what that says. The copyright holder gets to control performances. If they license the performance, then the derivative work falls under the control of that performer, including the power, then, to control recording rights of that performance.
Assuming the agreement gives the licensee control Hence the "per the terms of the agreement" that you quoted...
then it sounds like Radiohead gets to say what happens to any recordings made, even if Prince (or anyone else) made them No. If Prince made them without permission, then Prince loses the ability enforce copyright restrictions, and Radiohead can pursue action against Prince. Radiohead does not directly get to act where this conflict exists until the control issue is resolved.
you merely accept one of a few choices of contract and all that it entails. That's negotiation. You select your carrier and the terms they offer. Businesses do not operate on individually-crafted contracts. It would take too much time and cost far too much money. The problem with people with a little knowledge of the law is that you're incredibly dangerous. Words don't mean what you take them for granted to mean.
Standard form contracts are how mass transactions occur, even between businesses. You even get situations where two businesses enter into contracts and exchange forms with different terms. There's an entire area of contract law dedicated to resolving those discrepancies.
You have more than one choice of plans from more than one choice of provider. Not being able to get exactly what you want at the exact price you want does not make a weak contractual foundation.
This means they are negotiating from a position of power. Unfair position is more akin to their relative sophistication about the process and your relative unsophistication, meaning that they are a more capable party. You're describing something closer to business duress, and it's simply not true.
You cannot realistically say that to the extent that a cellular phone is "necessary" (and that's granting you a wide deference, since it is not truly necessary unless you can't get local landline service at all), there isn't an option available. There are prepaid calling cards, there are monthly no-contract plans, there are one-, two-, and three-year contracts from many providers, and there's now even VOIP if you stick to WiFi coverage areas. Being able to make and receive calls can be done without facing these termination fees.
The better rates, greater features, and additional services available are useful, convenient, and extremely beneficial in terms of efficiency and workload management...but they're not necessary.
As a consumer, you will always be disadvantaged when entering into standard transactions. That's why we have attorneys general to take on industry practices (among other means) when unfair exploitation occurs. Some amount of exploitation, however, is assumed and tolerated in a capitalist society--it's the entire basis of profit.
The cancellation fee is a delicate issue. The providers absolutely are entitled to recoup their losses in the low-cost handsets and other "free" services they provide, if they were induced to provide them in exchange for a commitment of $x for y years. On the other hand, people who do not take advantage of that upfront subsidy should not be forced to line the pockets of industry executives with extra cash. If they have no costs to recoup based on your departure, you should be able to walk away for a nominal fee for breaking your contract (e.g. $25 or one extra month's billing rate).
Performances are part of the scope of copyright. 17 USC 106(4). Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed, and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement. Recording rights will be included in that, as using the performance to fix the work to a different medium and sharing that publicly is not a right a person will have. 17 USC 106(2,5). To say a performance cannot be copyrighted is to ignore the issue entirely. The whole reason that videos get pulled from YouTube is because they are unauthorized distribution of recordings.
in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record. Only if that person had the right to prepare the recording in the first place.
Bankruptcy isn't that big of a deal It depends. This, again, is the whole point. A criminal record is not necessarily any "bigger" of a deal. Your situation might make one or the other more relevant, significant, or difficult. There are plenty of situations where a civil judgment is an absolute disaster, and likewise a large number of circumstances in which criminal records are not major issues.
Again, most misdemeanors fall into this category.
I wasn't talking about traffic tickets -- those aren't crimes in most states. In New York they are termed 'violations' (as opposed to 'misdemeanors' or 'felonies') and don't contribute towards a criminal record. Even if they did I'd be hard pressed to think of many employers that would care about a few traffic infractions, unless driving is part of your day to day job duties. I think if you look more closely, you'll find a number of criminal infractions. In my first post, I specified that traffic tickets were not frequently criminal matters, but the fact remains that they are in some places, and their significance does not change much with that change in designation. That's precisely my point: a criminal record isn't necessarily worse than a civil one.
If you've got a traffic misdemeanor in your history, you have a criminal record. It's that simple. A civil judgment, producing no criminal record, could easily be worse.
They aren't 'off-limits' but how many employment applications have you filed out that asked about civil judgments? You're responsible for disclosing anything that might be relevant to the hiring decision, or you could easily be facing yet another civil judgment. Fraud through concealment does indeed exist. You don't have to be asked; you should be forthcoming.
you'd have to admit that a lot more employers are going to pull criminal background checks than will pull credit reports. You're still missing the point. A criminal record might not contain anything significant; circumstances surrounding a civil action might very well be. You don't need a credit report to pull a record of judgments against you--it's part of a standard background check at many employers. Civil judgments, with certain exceptions, are recorded in an analog to a criminal record.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever modded this up is mistaken.
You can't "just buy" the new iPhone. You have to upgrade your phone and account, restarting your 2-year commitment on your iPhone 3G purchase date. You cannot buy the iPhone 3G without proof of AT&T service.
Sure there is. Worldwide pricing is $199 US. So, for you, that's about £100.
An unnecessary loophole, given that you could just pick one off the shelf and buy it.
Now, it appears as though you will not be able to purchase one without (a) signing up for a new AT&T account or (b) proving the existence of a current iPhone account you will be upgrading to. Since the new iPhone is pretty clearly subsidized, dropping the contract would require return of the iPhone.
Apple doesn't have anything to do with that. AT&T has always allowed customers to upgrade their phones at any time, usually restarting the 2-year contract. However, if you are buying or bringing in unsubsidized hardware, it has been my experience that the contract does not get restarted (and obviously, if you just move your SIM card into a different handset that you've acquired through a third party, there's no change in your contract).
The only way Apple might be involved is in verifying your existing iPhone account at purchase before handing you the box. This seems likely, given the price and the fact that they're obligated to honor their exclusivity agreement (and AT&T, for all its other missteps and poor decisions, has been doing a decent job with providing iPhone customers with service and value-added perks [including rapid expansion of their previously pathetic 3G network]).
Because Starbucks has chosen to cater to a different audience. They've already more or less maximized their customer base, and people don't go to Starbucks for the Wifi. Offering it for free would cost them money and gain them nothing.
Instead, Starbucks has decided to target a different group: business customers. These are people who don't actually pay the $10 connection fee for one-time use; they have Wifi hotspot plans with their Blackberries and iPhones, or their company has access to such a plan. The non-free Wifi providers (T-Mo, AT&T, Boingo or whoever, etc.) don't make most of their money on one-off connections and single day users. Those people will find some place that offers it for free or simply do without it. AT&T has instantly expanded its customer base by giving most of its DSL customers the same, integrated access, as its Mobility users.
The cost is therefore irrelevant, and in exchange, charging users for it acts as a bar to overcrowding as well as maintains a consistent quality of service. Starbucks installations are hefty boxes with commercial-grade switches and gateway hardware, connected to pricey T1 (and in some locations, T3) dedicated backbones. The management costs and service contracts easily add up to something in the $1000/mo range for providing the service, so the provider charges to recoup that, and Starbucks doesn't pay it for everyone because it would be counterproductive.
Business travelers know that they can get reasonably fast, reliable connections by visiting Starbucks. That has increased their sales and the store visits. It's also a welcome service that many places still do not provide. Independent coffee shops with a DSL modem and a D-Link router aren't competitors in the slightest for the customers meant for Starbucks' Wifi connections.
If there's no point to voting, then why not "waste" your vote on the independent candidate anyway? It's the only way anything will ever change.
Instead of lamenting your "two" choices, make use of your ballot to go with Option C. If you don't care which of the two major party candidates gets elected because it's all the same to you, instead of sitting on your ass, throw your vote away on someone you care about. Those numbers can add up. Your conclusions are contradictory. "Why bother voting if you only have two choices?" and "I wish I had a third choice" don't mesh: you DO have a third choice. Not voting at all isn't a form of protest; it's not resignation to a fate out of your hands. It's just lazy.
What difference does it make to you whether the independent candidate has a chance? If there's no point in voting for Corporate Candidate A or B, don't. Candidates have a chance when voters give them a chance. Stop bitching and do something about it. The worst that could happen is that your vote has no impact--but if you don't vote, that's a certainty regardless.
Wow. I just couldn't pass this up.
1. Are you human? Yes? You're pushing a political agenda. Anyone asking for apolitical performance is just asking to be lied to.
2. Adversarial system. Jury of peers. Courts don't make careers for attorneys who convict innocent people, and your premise is invalid and unsupported. If you're suggesting that some other metric for DAs other than number of convictions should be used, name it. False positives will happen, but must be balanced against evidentiary failures. Are you now going to turn around and bitch about guilty parties getting off the hook? The simple reality is that there is no fine-tuned granular control that handles both. You just try it sometime, using objective elements and without inferences or generalizations. Half the population is upset about guilty people walking because the evidence isn't there to convict them; the other half is upset because innocent people are implicated by evidence and can't prove their way out of it. There's no win-win.
If you don't think lawyers are driven crazy by both, you don't understand anything at all, let alone the profession. You do the best you can. That's all anyone can ask for.
3. That's why we have a tiered court system. What would be the point of appellate courts if there was never anything to appeal? Your take, unsurprisingly, goes much too far. Chances of success on appeal are slim to none for just about any given case.
4. Seems like an awfully specific beef. Don't like the policy, the law, or the burdens at trial? Challenge them. It's how it works. Is there a natural presumption that the mother is the better parent, all things being equal? Maybe, but it's not created by the courts or any element of the legal system. It's endemic to society.
If you want to say that courts should recognize that instinctive presumption and ignore it, that's one thing, but it comes right back when there's a decision to be made: if the evidence is in equipoise, someone has to make a judgment call. Instinct is going to influence that as much as anything else, and short of a coin flip, there's a reason we put these people on the bench.
Attorneys hate bad judges much more passionately than any random lay person. That's the simple truth. But people only have themselves to blame for it, either for electing them, or for electing people who have no sense when it comes to appointing judges. That's one downside in democratic republics. It's not the fault of the legal system.
5. That's their job. Somebody invariably gets screwed over when there are two sides to an issue. Everyone can't be happy, and generally, the unhappy party will be a citizen. To say it's slanted consistently against one group is foolish at best.
6. Plea bargains don't convict anyone. If you're innocent and you take one, it's your choice, based on the weighing of your own circumstances and must be consistent with your personal convictions. I personally don't see why an innocent person would ever take such a bargain, and have never heard of it happening outside of TV. If you had no information to provide or nothing of value to offer in exchange, why would you even be offered a plea? Life is not much like "Law and Order". Plea bargains aren't usually offered on a whim or as a fishing expedition.
7. Blame your fellow citizens for that invented statistic.
8. How is that the court's fault? People handle divorces however they choose to do so.
9. Such as?
10. You've got to be completely off your rocker if you think that capital cases are anything remotely close to "fast" anything. If you've got no defense to raise and overwhelming evidence against you, yes, the process goes more quickly. It's called efficiency.
11. Such as?
12. Welcome to the real world. Deadlines matter. Controversies must end, and the schedule can't be dragged on forever. With cases taking 2-3 years on a regular basis, without deadlines, there'd never be a decision. Finality is an important element of ju
Yeah. The Titanic was a state of the art, fast ship, featuring new and innovative technology to improve survivability. Nothing is invincible, and the technology wasn't enough to save the ship. Had she avoided the iceberg, she would have gone on to continue to set records.
Put another way, are your servers unreliable after an earthquake causes part of the building to collapse, crushing some of them?
Tremendously famous, record-setting ships carried Royal Mail contracts at the height of the era: The Great Eastern (first ship capable of traversing the oceans without refueling), the Great Britain(largest ship in the world in its day), the Oceanic (a watershed ship in ocean liner history), the Lusitania, the Mauretania, the Adriatic, the Titanic and her sister ships, just to name a few.
The mark was undeniably competed for and represented a certain prestige that other ships had to work much harder to earn. As the RMS prefix became associated with the biggest, fastest, and most impressive ships, it grew increasingly valuable to companies hoping to project that image. This actually lowered the previously exorbitant mail carrying charges for steamship transport. Again, not particularly. All RMS contract ships faced penalties for delays. Not particularly. Don't be a sore loser. Some of Britain's most famous ships carried the designation, and it absolutely was a mark of quality and an element of competition. Just recently, in fact, the QM2 was granted the right to use the designation in recognition of the proud heritage of ocean liners that precedes her--this is despite the fact that using ships for mail is wholly obsolete.
Unless you can demonstrate any of your bizarre contentions with evidence (which I think the British Postal Museum would be rather interested in), we'll all just take your remarks at face value: glib and vacuous.
You're both correct. RMS means "Royal Mail Ship" and is used by any ship granted a mail-carrying contract. However, in order to earn that contract, the ship and crew traditionally had to be consistently fast and reliable. This was reinforced by relatively hefty penalties for delays (by the minute, I think, in the 19th Century--something rather remarkable considering the slow speed of ships and the unpredictable conditions).
As a result, earning an RMS designation was a mark of great prestige in those days.
The performance in question was fixed at the time of its performance in a recording. The fact that Prince gave the performance tonight, doesn't entitle him to any copyright control over recordings made by other people. No one is claiming this is the case. Now, if you're trying to argue that the arrangement, lyrics, etc are the controlling issue, Prince doesn't own them either - they belong to Radiohead. No. Radiohead does not have a copyright on Prince's arrangement of the song, nor do they have the copyright on any modified lyrics. They have a copyright on their versions, remixes, and others. The problem is, his performance isn't eligible for copyright protection. For the last time, this is not entirely accurate. NYCL is far from the only attorney on this forum, and popularity notwithstanding, far from the most knowledgeable. It should not be so terribly difficult for you to grasp that once an artist obtains permission to perform someone else's song, absent some other contractual agreement, the covering artist has the copyright to their arrangement, their modified lyrics (if any), and any derivative works. This includes the right to control performances, limit recordings, and issue takedown notices of unauthorized distributions of the same.
Radiohead certainly also has copyright claims to the video, especially since lyrical changes are usually derivative tracks and not covers, so they still have that, but their copyright does not preclude Prince's.
Honestly, did you even bother to read? Only in a "fixed" form, not a performance. Are you unfamiliar with the term "arrangement"? No one is talking about the performance itself. You won't find any support for that theory in US copyright law. You're quite mistaken, especially since the portion you quoted includes something you unnecessarily and redundantly tried to "correct".
It is neither an ad hominem nor an accusation.
It's a simple observation...one that has gone so far as to become cliché. A little knowledge, as I said, is truly dangerous, because it sets you down the wrong path. It was in no way intended to cause offense; if that was the result, I apologize. In your case, you seem well-adjusted, but for many on this forum, it becomes entrenched and immovable, with unfortunate consequences for the quality of discussion.
The fan is not permitted to prepare derivative works of the song (because it belongs to Radiohead), or the performance arrangement of Prince (because that belongs to Prince). What kind of crew Prince had with him makes no difference in US copyright law. Yes, it does. Without a recording crew present, the question of the performance would go back to whether the arrangement itself was fixed. Because there was such an authorized crew present for the purpose of preparing a recording of the performance, this question is irrelevant. Fans do not get to distribute recordings of that performance without permission, explicit or implicit.
You still don't get it, do you?
You might start by going back and reading the article. The performance in question is fixed. Even absent the video, the arrangement would also likely be fixed.
Unless the work were a spontaneous product of absolutely no prior preparation, which obviously isn't the case in a concert venue, the performance is based on a copyrighted work. Derivative preparations, including recordings, are not for control.
This has nothing to do with copyrighting the act of performance, which no one is talking about. You're clearly struggling with this situation, and not understanding the effects and mechanisms of copyright in this scenario. The performance in question is fixed, and recordings of it do fall under the scope of copyright.
RTFA. Prince's rendition was recorded in a fixed medium as authorized by Prince. That's the whole nature of this issue--unauthorized derivative recordings.
If there hadn't been a professional recording crew with him, you'd be closer to having a point.
You seem to be confused about my post. I suggest you re-read until it sinks in.
The copyright holder controls who may perform the work, and the terms under which they may do so. They also have the right to derivative preparations (including recordings of that performance). If they transfer or assign those rights, even in a limited fashion, to be shared with another party, that party gets to exercise those rights.
The act of performance is not itself an issue of copyright, but that's unimportant, because that's not the issue here (except as to whether Prince was legally entitled to do so in the first place). The performance may include a derivative arrangement of the music and/or lyrics (and likely does, given the notably different styles of Prince and Radiohead), and that is a matter of copyright.
Not necessarily. It is entirely possible that there is more than one copyright in question here. All it takes is one of those copyrights to be involved for a party to be able to issue a takedown notice.
Prince might well have a copyright to the arrangement he performed, and Radiohead might not necessarily have been the ones to license it, depending on the specifics of each performer's relationship to their labels and to each other.
Standard form contracts are how mass transactions occur, even between businesses. You even get situations where two businesses enter into contracts and exchange forms with different terms. There's an entire area of contract law dedicated to resolving those discrepancies.
You have more than one choice of plans from more than one choice of provider. Not being able to get exactly what you want at the exact price you want does not make a weak contractual foundation. This means they are negotiating from a position of power. Unfair position is more akin to their relative sophistication about the process and your relative unsophistication, meaning that they are a more capable party. You're describing something closer to business duress, and it's simply not true.
You cannot realistically say that to the extent that a cellular phone is "necessary" (and that's granting you a wide deference, since it is not truly necessary unless you can't get local landline service at all), there isn't an option available. There are prepaid calling cards, there are monthly no-contract plans, there are one-, two-, and three-year contracts from many providers, and there's now even VOIP if you stick to WiFi coverage areas. Being able to make and receive calls can be done without facing these termination fees.
The better rates, greater features, and additional services available are useful, convenient, and extremely beneficial in terms of efficiency and workload management...but they're not necessary.
As a consumer, you will always be disadvantaged when entering into standard transactions. That's why we have attorneys general to take on industry practices (among other means) when unfair exploitation occurs. Some amount of exploitation, however, is assumed and tolerated in a capitalist society--it's the entire basis of profit.
The cancellation fee is a delicate issue. The providers absolutely are entitled to recoup their losses in the low-cost handsets and other "free" services they provide, if they were induced to provide them in exchange for a commitment of $x for y years. On the other hand, people who do not take advantage of that upfront subsidy should not be forced to line the pockets of industry executives with extra cash. If they have no costs to recoup based on your departure, you should be able to walk away for a nominal fee for breaking your contract (e.g. $25 or one extra month's billing rate).
To say a performance cannot be copyrighted is to ignore the issue entirely. The whole reason that videos get pulled from YouTube is because they are unauthorized distribution of recordings. in which case the copyright is owned by whomever created the record. Only if that person had the right to prepare the recording in the first place.
Again, most misdemeanors fall into this category. I wasn't talking about traffic tickets -- those aren't crimes in most states. In New York they are termed 'violations' (as opposed to 'misdemeanors' or 'felonies') and don't contribute towards a criminal record. Even if they did I'd be hard pressed to think of many employers that would care about a few traffic infractions, unless driving is part of your day to day job duties. I think if you look more closely, you'll find a number of criminal infractions. In my first post, I specified that traffic tickets were not frequently criminal matters, but the fact remains that they are in some places, and their significance does not change much with that change in designation. That's precisely my point: a criminal record isn't necessarily worse than a civil one.
If you've got a traffic misdemeanor in your history, you have a criminal record. It's that simple. A civil judgment, producing no criminal record, could easily be worse. They aren't 'off-limits' but how many employment applications have you filed out that asked about civil judgments? You're responsible for disclosing anything that might be relevant to the hiring decision, or you could easily be facing yet another civil judgment. Fraud through concealment does indeed exist. You don't have to be asked; you should be forthcoming. you'd have to admit that a lot more employers are going to pull criminal background checks than will pull credit reports. You're still missing the point. A criminal record might not contain anything significant; circumstances surrounding a civil action might very well be. You don't need a credit report to pull a record of judgments against you--it's part of a standard background check at many employers. Civil judgments, with certain exceptions, are recorded in an analog to a criminal record.