1. Move to Trash is always the top item after the first separator, unless it is a packagage file, in which case it follows "Show Package Contents." This is consistent, non-arbitrary, and a GUI improvement to reduce mouse travel. The addition of new items in the third menu segment (e.g. Quick Look) placed the Trash option too far down and isolated from other file operations, so it was moved to the second segment.
2. The "More" menu now contains third party actions (and Automator) in a single space. It is also non-arbitrary, not dynamic, and not "Microsoftian" in any way. This achieves a shorter context menu while simultaneously opening options for Finder plug-ins, which in turn contradicts your first point: previously, third-party actions appeared in the middle of the "Apple" set of options, making context menus inconsistent. This solves that.
3. The contrast differential is pretty clear on folder icons. You're either fighting memory response or have not configured your workspace in a usable manner if your vision is that poor. In any case, folder icons are hardly a usability issue, and you're free to change them to whatever you want.
4. The stacks "icon pile" is a bit of a gimmick. It works for some uses (like being alerted that your download has finished when the icon appears on top), and not for others (arbitrary folders may appear with identical top icons). There's no need to use fan view (though you have to have a bit of an obsession to find it phallic), and frankly calling it an unintuitive feature because of the icon it uses is more than a little "blustering fool." Yes, it's new. Yes, it would be nice if they added the "Dock folder" view so people like you could just go back to the old way and shut up.
5. None of these details speaks of the pervasive level you implied in your comment. Menu options don't shift around like Windows' hide-and-seek menus, and the fact that "Move to Trash" has been moved higher up in the menu features so prominently in your list of complaints seems capricious at best. With the exception of some limited valid gripes about Stacks, you've mentioned one-off changes that you don't like as representative of a systemic failure. Where's the problem? Finish the thought. You've identified 'problems' (changes) without identifying the problem. I don't see a negative impact anywhere.
Things change. The simple fact of a change is never a problem in and of itself.
It's like talking about how we've had automobile driving laws since the creation of cities. No, it's not like that at all. It's like saying "restrictions on roadways are a new idea." They're not, even if you make the artificial distinction that you're only talking about "modern" asphalt roadways with yellow and white markings.
Likewise, the modern concept of copyright didn't start until the government granted anyone who wanted it a copyright, and it was treated as an actual property. The 'modern concept' of larceny is roughly three decades old; 'modern' rape, perhaps five. Does that mean that larceny and rape are new ideas?
The modern concept of copyright is nothing more than a broadening and restructuring of printing patents. There's nothing terribly special about it. You still have to register with the government to get standing to sue; it has always been treated as property; it operates with the same fundamental protections (i.e. the same benefit is conferred). The ease and frequency with which they are granted plays no role in determining how long a legal framework has existed. It's the difference between width and depth.
Your line of argument alleges that the 'idea' of the Internet is only about ten years old because most people didn't really have access to it until then. That's pretty absurd. Any way you slice it, the idea of copyright is anything but new. If you had said that contemporary copyright doesn't resemble its predecessors, you'd be a little warmer, though still incorrect. It's basically only scope that has changed from 500 years ago. The rights are essentially the same, with obvious concessions for new technology.
So I'm not aware of a legal copyright (in the sense of having the exclusive right to determine how and where a work may be printed, performed or played) on the continent before the 18th century. Printing patents were granted as early as the 15th Century. The legal restrictions on printing are for all intents and purposes as old as printing itself. Those printing restrictions themselves were not unprecedented--they are derivatives of commission and letters patent granted to artists and artisans dating back well before the printing press was invented.
The performer's royal commission granting monopoly rights, stretching back to Renaissance times (depending on whose research you believe, even further--there is evidence of protected scribes in ancient Egypt) was such a patent and granted certain rights and benefits to the creators of certain works of art and performances. In a time when reproduction had to be achieved by hand and staggering effort, a royal commission not only identified the author, but granted such individual(s) exclusive rights and privileges. We now recognize those rights in the forms of Contract and Property.
Ownership of 'works of the mind' in the modern sense has been part of European jurisprudence since, at the latest, the mid-16th Century. Property rights (typically, monopoly rights) in creators and producers dates back much, much further. Certainly no one can set a date for copyright's lineage after 1450 or so, since printing patents are at least that old in Western society--nearly 600 years ago in Venice (as old as Roman Typography itself)! That, of course, ignores several relevant earlier developments, but still proves the point: the concept of a copy right is not new unless you're also arguing that our othographical and punctuation system is also "new." If the popular argument on Slashdot is that copyrights are the granting of "monopoly rights" then you must follow that through to its logical origin, over a thousand years back. Of course, copyright is much more complex than that and the Slashdot argument is largely invalid, but it's a concession I'll make.
Copyright is, as previously mentioned, a derivative of the printing patent, which supplemented and in some cases replaced some RP letters patent, which have been granted going very far back indeed (at least to the Crusades, though different people interpret the evolution differently). Whether you want to draw the line at printing patents 500-some years ago or letters patents for performers and artists several centuries before that, it's certainly not a "new" idea in any practical timescale.
Copyright is neither a recent concept nor limited to the Berne Convention (which should be a clear indicator to you--an international accord doesn't spring from thin air, but rather evolves from domestic policies and practices that are standardized by treaty). The word copyright is about 150 years old, but the concept is far, far older.
The bit about classical composers is a total red herring. The reason copyright didn't apply to them is because there was no technology to make copies. Composers enjoyed state protection throughout the era you dismiss.
it took until the 17th century until the first copyright acts came into existance. Existence, and not strictly true. The first copyrights, if we're to accept the "monopolistic control" premise, are older than the Magna Carta. Further, Shakespeare in the 16th century battled reproductions of his Second Folio. He was not by any means the first to do so.
Copyright is an evolution of the premodern patent (before it took on the primary meaning of dealing with inventions), itself of course derived from letters patent, which have been issued for artists since before the printing press. The grant of commission was a patent granted by the sovereign to artists and performers.
The modern form is quite different, and the term copyright arose out of industrial-era technology first allowing the production of copies, no longer requiring reproduction by hand. Such protection was therefore very different in character in an era before reproductions were possible--royal protection by patent and recognition was itself sufficient. After the printing press, monopolies on printing extended that royal patent to restrictions on printing. After the phonograph, legal rights extended to protect that field. After vinyl albums and cassettes, after personal computers, after the Internet, you know the story. The protection has evolved and expanded over the course of a thousand years. It didn't just pop up one day in the 1880s.
However, programming languages are not immediately relevant to every single citizen. Neither is the law as you see it.
Just like most computer users don't go digging around in the source code, most citizens have no need to scour casebooks. The law is much more than statutes. The law that directly concerns citizens is less than the entirety of statutes. Most of them are reasonably clear. Most people know when they're doing something they shouldn't.
How the entirety of law could possibly be relevant to the daily lives of every single citizen, I do not know. The DMV handbook is a pretty clear guide about driving. The statutes are written for a different audience, but are pretty clear to those willing to do the work, just like source code is to software.
why don't we do the same with laws? Because it's not possible. You can scrap every law ever written and condense it down to a couple hundred page compendium. Given a few decades, the state of the law will have ballooned to thousands upon thousands of pages. It's human nature. Clarification and interpretation is an ongoing reality of law.
It's pure folly to think that laws can be simplified to the point where an average person can read a few sentences and walk away, knowing everything. The law can be summarized in a few sentences and can provide guidelines for people. Society is pretty good about compliance, but even the Ten Commandments is riddled with interpretive problems.
It's unnecessary fearmongering and pedanticism, misapplied to the wrong fields, that causes trouble. It's technically true that an average person technically violates a large number of laws in the course of normal life. That doesn't mean there are definite consequences, or that the law even contemplates imposing any. That's why law is complicated. It is not mechanical. It is not a formula. It is human.
It's colored by subtlety, it's flawed, it's not always perfectly consistent, and it's always evolving. Just like us.
I personally have no problem with people pirating my game...mainly because I get paid no matter what. That's because you're on salary for a--gasp!--corporation! A corporation that has tons of money to throw around because it has been profitable. Now turn that around and have your company's official line be "pay or don't pay!" and see how long you have a job, let alone a salaried one. You're not given advances with tons of strings and nickled and dimed until you barely break even. Your payment and profitability is not contingent on the success of your work. This isn't how it works in most of the industry. You have, for all intents and purposes, a corporate office job.
I have seen so much more corrupt things through the execs of my company than you would ever know. I have gotten screwed out of bonuses that I know I should of gotten. Why? because of corporate greed. And yet you blame successful artists and entertainers and specifically target them in your irrational self-justification.
How many 18 hour days have you put in at your work? I am guessing not many if any. Then you're clearly a buffoon. I've put in 24-hour days at crunch time or when something big for the firm is on the line. I can't remember a day shorter than 12 hours in the past few years. I can't say what bearing it has on anything here, though, other than chest-puffing on your part.
SO yeah I think I might have a little more credibility than you do buddy. You've yet to demonstrate it.
People like me actually contribute to your entertainment. People like me, love our job and we aren't EXPECTING to get paid millions of dollars. And your point is? 99% of the entertainment industry doesn't, either. Yet you're lumping them all together with your jealous indignation. They don't get paid a salary all year. They get paid either by the project or through residuals. They're not like you.
Why the fuck are we even caring about people like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton? It is all about priorities man, priorities. And you blame Britney Spears and Paris Hilton for that? You have your own Ahab-like obsession with these megacelebrities when you shouldn't care. Why DO you care about them or their lifestyles? Why don't you just do without? If you stop paying attention, they'll stop getting paid.
What entitles you to pass judgment? What entitles you to enjoy productions without paying where you're so asked (for the simple and infantile excuse that you, The Decider, don't think they need more money)? What's so hard about rewarding artists whom you like or who make their content available for free and ignoring the others? If you don't like their business model, don't participate. It's that simple. Look elsewhere.
After all, "there are things like myspace, facebook, youtube, ifilm, break, liveleak, and a billion other places out there to get them recognized." You shouldn't have any trouble finding all your entertainment there. You don't need the studios and their greed and overpaid celebrities--but oh wait, you want to see their work anyway.
Well here's the rub. You're not worth your $50k salary. You shouldn't be paid more than a nurse or a school teacher or the people who clean your office at night. To that end, I'm not buying your game. I'm not playing your game. I'm not buying merchandise related to your game. I'm not going to talk about my game to my friends. Neither is most of the rest of the population. The market will react accordingly. See how beautifully that works?
You can construct as elaborate a rationale as you want, but it all comes down to "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?". There's no gun to your head and no pressing need for the content. You just want it, and you don't want to pay for it. You're too lazy to act in a principled manner and too greedy to do without. You're a leech, just like the corporate execs.
There are economic issues here that have apparently completely escaped you. The biggest one is that you have a middleman stuck squarely between the producer of a good or service, and the consumer of said service. On the contrary, it seems to have escaped you. The vitriol of the parent post is directed at some arbitrary class of spoiled super-celebrities. It is not directed at the hostile and inept people who control the flow of money. It is not directed at the system. It is directed at a few people who have enjoyed a great deal of success, whom parent seems rather jealous of, and categorizes an entire industry of hardworking people based on a few arbitrary examples.
There's massive graft and overhead involved in the traditional production and delivery of musical content, and what's at issue here is whether our artists should continue to be subject to it. The answer, in the Internet age, is no. There's massive graft and overhead involved in the traditional production of nearly everything. What's at issue here is that a way of assessing royalties and managing the flow of money. Freedom from the large studios simply isn't going to happen--prices would go up (yes, up) astronomically without them. Internet age or not, there is not a feasible alternative for motion pictures or major artist tours. There aren't the throngs of people lined up to finance them that people like you seem to think there are.
The answer is a wholesale revision of practices across the board to account for the changing social dynamic. Yes, the labels are asshats, but look around. So are many of the customers (including some of the vocal people here). The rhetoric and pie-in-the-sky solutions thrown around here are not based in reality. The big studios and labels aren't going anywhere. Copyright isn't going anywhere. Copyright infringement isn't going to be "okay" just because it's easy and because some whiny people with entitlement issues insist there's no harm.
Change isn't easy. People here don't make it any easier, though. Statements like the parent post and all the other rampant inane rationalizations that clutter these pages simply beg for a response. Who are they, passing judgment on the income of celebrities and saying they don't "need" it and so they're going to steal the copy (but they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so you know, it's cool, man) and enjoy it. What if someone worse off than you decided you didn't actually deserve your salary and did what they could to undermine it? I imagine you wouldn't be too pleased, either. Turns out there IS a way to say "we think you get paid too much"--it's called doing without. Anything else is just as big a leech as any label.
No, it's that $150,000 is the maximum for statutory damages. There is no maximum to the "actual" damages you can seek.
The problem with statutory damages is that they were established to combat piracy shops--not the collective product of thousands of infringers sharing a few hundred songs. There's pretty clearly a severe harm in the more widespread, low-level piracy (independent of the argument that *some* filesharing is a boon to the industry--it is, but that's an issue of a threshold of attention), but leveling the kinds of damages against individual persons that you would against a piracy kingpin was not contemplated by the law.
It's just one symptom of a larger problem society faces as it turns toward a more distributed, globally interconnected system. We won't be fighting many wars against large armies; you no longer need a large operation to be profitable at black market trades (drugs, piracy, smuggling, you name it). You just need a few people connected through the Internet. One the one hand it's a more nefarious and difficult threat, but on the other, there's lower individual culpability. Finding the right punishment is something that will take some trial and error.
For statutory damages, there should be a separate "P2P" class of damages that are substantially lower (but still substantial). For those peer-to-peer players that have thousands of songs being downloaded thousands of times, with losses in the millions, they could still put on a case for compensatory damages. It would save everyone's time and money. But the industry isn't going to back it so long as there are so many hostile pirates proving their point at every turn.
I do not care about actors, musicians, directors, managers, producers because they all get paid no matter what. No, they don't. The majority of them also do not make the kind of money that you (in your infinite wisdom, I might add) have deemed excessive. Most people in the industry, including many actors, live relatively normal lives. At most, if a project is successful, they'll use the unusually high return to buy a house (for financial security) or a nice car (to celebrate). Most of them don't have one "supercar", let alone three or four. Most don't live in Malibu estates.
Actors and musicians also don't get paid for the time they actually spend doing most of the work--creating, rehearsing, making modifications, planning performances, and the like--you know, the kind of things YOU do at work while the money keeps rolling in before you finish. Artists, on the other hand, don't get paid until the work is done and rely on income for the performance. They get paid a lot because they get paid in lump sums.
I am sorry but actors/actresses don't need to be paid millions for their roles in movies. But I bet you shop at stores run by corporations. Chances are you also work for one, contributing to their bottom line. Their executives make far more than most artists, even the very successful ones you so despise. Do you watch ESPN? Why do professional athletes get paid so much for so little. How about venture capitalists, lottery winners, and financial speculators who make huge amounts of money at once--but then make almost none for years?
Frankly, people like you who reduce an entire industry filled with legitimate artists, millions of middle-class employees, and hardworking entertainers who love what they do to the same level as some slimy fat cats in it are just as bad as the RIAA. By your logic, doctors are cheap hacks, too. You shouldn't pay your bill because you don't think they should charge so much or have unattractive offices. They don't deserve nice houses or things that you, Joe Armchair, would be jealous of.
90% of that stuff I wouldn't of seen to begin with so I don't feel guilty about taking what I wouldn't of seen or heard or enjoyed. A lot of it is educational Not educational enough, apparently. But you're right; there'd be plenty of income and jobs for everyone and a roaring economy if people just didn't pay for the things they didn't plan to buy. I mean, we wouldn't have enjoyed it if it weren't for the five-finger discount.
Not if you want to sue under Copyright Law. Only the people who own the copyright can sue for its infringement, and even then it is not as clear-cut a case of infringement as you would hope. Without assignment of copyright to some sort of working group, there's a very clear limit on who can sue, and it's not all kernel developers.
It's the kernel developers whose copyright has been breached, i.e. the owners of the code inappropriately modified. Different entities holding different copyrights on different parts of the same piece of software cannot sue for copyright infringement if their code was not improperly modified. This is why the FSF often seeks assignment of copyrights.
That's also setting aside the issue of whether a pure copyright claim would be successful. Generally speaking, it's not. The software is released with a determinable license and no clear timeframe for compliance, no process for dispute resolution, and no procedural repudiation. Falling out of compliance with a license can automatically terminate it, but notification of that termination is still generally required. It also does not mean that a court can simply pretend there is no license involved. Once distributed, the power to revoke has ended and only the power to terminate remains. These are fundamentally different scenarios in litigation.
Apart from being total hogwash, your lunacy isn't even internally consistent--you refer to property rights, which don't exist in the first place in the infantile binary state you've created. But you know that, or you'd log in.
I guess we live in a world with no rights whatsoever!
Yawn. You again.
Rights don't violate other rights, dipshit. Hahahahaha......We'll just leave it there. If you actually believe that, there's no hope for you.
There are patents, copyrights, and trademarks, but those are limited entitlements, not property Have you read nothing at all? You know nothing of which you speak. Crack open any Property I book. Par for the course, I suppose--still struggling with that pesky definition. I know, I know, words are hard.
I'll give this to you one more time - then I'll let you have the last word. "Intellectual property" does not exist. It is not real (in the epistemological sense), while physical (go ahead and deconstruct that if you want) property is. How is it not epistemologically real? It is a coherent, systematic, endemic set of rights codified by law, just like all other kinds of property. "Physical" property does not exist, either. You can change the adjective as many times as you want, but you're clearly flailing to establish a legal grounds for concepts unimportant to the law.
You're simply saying that IP doesn't concern itself with physical works, which is not entirely accurate, but more importantly, wholly irrelevant.
You are improperly conflating property with a collection of federal rules that govern (re)production of intangible concepts. That is not true, nor is your statement a logical possibility. You continually fail to apply a proper definition to property. It is simply not possible to conflate a superset of rules with a subset of those rules in the manner you suggest--conflation requires discrete elements. A and B cannot be conflated where B exists in A.
"Physical" property is a lay expression. There is no physicality at all in legal property. A copyright is no more or less "real" or "physical" or "tangible" than a real property right or a personalty right. This is something you consistently fail to comprehend in your Tourettic outbursts.
You are using a mistaken, incomplete, and wholly inaccurate understanding to argue a definition in a field with which you are not familiar, for reasons that escape comprehension. Words in the law do not carry the same meaning that they do in daily discourse, and legal terms of convenience do not have to make sense to the masses to be proper (e.g. your prior remarks are clearly an insane rant, yet you are not necessarily legally insane for any given purpose). If you would pause to absorb that simple fact, you might avoid making a fool of yourself.
Keep reading. If your leaden skull and six working brain cells work together and light in the right sequence, you might just get it (hint: it's not that tangible isn't a word [it is], it's that you're clearly just a moron out of your element). We'll be patient; we all know words are hard.
Property in a legal context is a set of rights. Nothing more, nothing less. It's really not that hard to understand, at least for someone with a fully functional brain.
And no, you can't kill people for "invading your property." (Here again though, you're improperly conflating lay property and legal property.) Typically, once they've entered and are not directly threatening you, the law does not allow you to use lethal force for the mere protection of possessions. But you're clearly not competent, so I don't expect you to understand that one, either.
There is no such thing as "tangible" property. Property in a legal context is a set of legal rights, nothing more or less. Personalty deals with tangible objects but it is just one kind of property, and not the most legally significant, most complex or eventful, or most litigated kind.
Again, had you bothered to read, this would not be an element of confusion for you.
You can use your idea when someone else simultaneously possesses your idea. An idea is not property, intellectual or otherwise. The rest of your misguided rant stems from that one fatal flaw and therefore does not stand.
Well now, "IP infringement" is not theft. But that is simply because theft is not the same as stealing, something that someone spent all of their mod points burying last time I brought it up. Slashdot wants to make the semantic argument that "the owner is not deprived of anything" (which is not true, but more importantly, totally beside the point), but they don't ever want to hear people actually apply the science of semantics to those statements.
Infringement is not theft (just like it's not larceny, robbery, or [usually] conversion). It is, however, stealing (which is not by itself a crime, misdemeanor, or even a tort and moreover is not even universally a moral wrong).
If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.
Bzzzt. For starters, you can't "steal" real property. You can forge title, you can adversely possess, and you can trespass, but a parcel of land can't be taken from someone as personalty.
If you steal IP, the owner of those property rights no longer has them. Property is at its most fundamental the right to exclude. If you assert property rights to my property, I no longer have the full enjoyment of those rights.
What you're referring to is the objectprotected by property laws. Legal property is a set of rights. There is no physicality in any property. You certainly can't "own" land--no one has the authority to grant that ownership. You have possession and occupancy, which coupled with title becomes your property. You own a set of rights to the land, which is all we can enforce.
If you give me your real property, the total value remains constant (because you don't have it anymore). If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it
No, if you give me your IP I have it and you don't. Two people can't simultaneously have ownership in toto of Intellectual Property. The overall value remains the same, just as with anything else. Just like all other kinds of property (real property, among others), you can transfer parts of your rights. You can rent, lease, grant easements, grant shares, and have a lien imposed. With IP you can grant a license, grant an interest in ownership, or a number of other mechanisms.
Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain
Well on top of not understanding the word property or having ever completed any legal coursework, apparently you've taken to rewriting the rules of testacy and land use, too. You own your property as long as the law prescribes. There are different periods depending on the different types of title, and upon how come into possession of that property. In no case can a person own property in perpetuity.
IP, like all other property, passes with the estate as long as it is still in existence at time of death.
As for the "true owner" issue, you're wrong as with every other point you've made. The true owner of an intellectual work is its creator. Were it retained without the grant or protection of copyright or other relevant IP, it would remain the property of the creator through his existence, and pass to his estate. Copyrights and patents draw works into a public domain--that is their ultimate expression. Without them, there is no public domain except those works granted voluntarily into it. It is a bargained-for exchange. The government protects your work and grants certain exclusive rights with the full force of law in exchange for ultimately assuming ownership of those works on behalf of society. Unless collective consciousness created them (and to my knowledge, humans do not have telepathic powers), Lockean ownership is vested in the creator, not the public domain.
"IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing.
This is perhaps my favorite. Legally speaking, there's also no such thing as "Family Law" or any of the other loose practical areas so named and accepted. There is no "Securities Law" or any other field. It's called a term of convenience and it covers the field just as aptly as most others. Most legal fields contain elements that touch on diverse and utterly unrelated matters of law. The theories of relief and the elements of protection are not central to the categorization.
Coming from someone who doesn't understand what property is, it's rich that you have the gall to take a page from the RMS playbook, which is as universally derided as one w
The United States has the third lowest tax burden of all OECD countries (~27%), beating out only Mexico (which taxes mostly goods and services) and South Korea (which benefits from a high export surplus and lower entitlement expenditures but even still only manages to fall in at one percentage point less).
Tax/GNI is not equivalent to budget/GDP. Budgets are not directly linked to current taxes and introduce a wild amount of error in your calculation. Your premise is faulty, and your site doesn't reflect the average citizen, but the average statistical fictional person-unit because unlike proper research methods you're attributing tax burdens to individuals where they are not taxed (both in redundant state spending overlap and in corporate taxes).
If you were to use comparable data sources for the UK, the amount would be proportionally increased, meaning that you're not really closing the gap at all with your "numbers". UK tax burden is ~43% higher than in the US, with an ~11% increase in budget/GDP (38% vs. 27% [and yes, that is inclusive]), reported by OECD for over 30 years and for dozens of countries, while your source is used by no one but nutters. Do you honestly believe what you wrote? You accepted a poorly-calculated figure (19%) and said "that's not all" and linked to a sensationalized and equally poorly-calculated different figure that proposes 33%--intimating that 1/3 of spending was missing. The "missing taxes" don't close the gap nearly as far as you suggest, and eerily like the saying, the truth is almost exactly in the middle.
People in the United States enjoy a ~30% lower tax burden than in the UK, all spending inclusive. It is the one of the lowest in the developed world and the lowest of the G8. At 27%, it's little more than half of the first-ranked 52% (Sweden). Coupled with the gigantic defense spending disparity (European-level spending on defense would cut US tax burden down into the 22-3% range), our tax burden is arguably too low compared to other developed nations.
Well, that's the oeuvre of a unitary system. There IS no state spending in the US sense of the word. The big-ticket items are nationalized, and you don't have the repetition in spending you do here (there's no second legislature to fund, no administrative overhead from state health programs). On the other hand, things like emergency services, libraries, and other services which are usually funded (indirectly) by state (as in U.S. state, not the traditional meaning of the term) revenue are instead funded locally. Local/municipal governments therefore cost "more" in effect than in the US because they're not propped up by US-state money.
For example, say local government spending on paper is 0.5% of PCI in the US and state spending is 2.3%. On paper in the UK, local government might be 2%--4x the US--but that's because the US gross budget numbers don't account for how much of the state budget just gets handed off to cities/counties (which might bring them closer to parity). So just 0.8% of the money, less administrative overhead, rolls back to national programs. All of these numbers are illustrative, not empirical.
The raw data are collected through different means for calculations like these. Depending on what purpose you want to serve, you can count the money based on who collects it (in unitary systems, usually predominantly the state ("nation")) or based on where the money is spent. In places like the UK that lack a US-style state, power and money is redistributed to compensate. Most of the power goes to the national level, but lots of the spending gets channeled down to the municipal/local level, where it makes more sense (roads, general social services [not big-ticket things like social insurance and health care, but the other kind], recorder's offices, courts).
I won't argue with you on the semantics of taking (substantively copying is taking, without the element of physical deprivation that theft implies), Exactly. That is and has been the entire point, which has earned some angry Slashdot-freaks.
People (including many professed "expert" attorneys) have been railing against a comment that makes no sense. There is no element of deprivation in taking, and by conclusory extension, stealing. Intent to deprive is an element of robbery and of theft. It is not an element of stealing. That's all I was saying.
"Copyright infringement isn't stealing" is flat out wrong. It isn't theft, conversion (usually), robbery, or larceny. It is stealing though (which is not by itself a crime, a misdemeanor, or a tort).
Over 30% less than the UK (or, from the other perspective, the UK spends almost 45% more), in fact, which is quite a significant difference in the grand scheme of things (the US has one of the lowest government costs in the world). In the business world, a difference that large would put one company's profits through the roof and the other company out of business. The UK is not the largest per-capita cost by a long shot, and we get much more done here for much less. Our defense spending is relied upon worldwide to varying extents, which further lightens the load for our European allies, allowing them to have much smaller defense budgets.
Remember that just as state and local spending is not included in the US figures, municipal spending doesn't appear in most other countries' figures--and its relative cost is higher in unitary systems, as local governments finance much of what a state government would.
Also note that state and local spending produces NOWHERE near the 10% difference you imply by your source (which would suggest that state spending is nearly half the federal budget). 32.7% is not the tax liability per capita by a long shot, because you're using a totally different methodology for calculations than the post you're replying to (government as share of GDP vs. dubious and misleading "tax freedom" dates). 32.7% is within the spin-inflated reasonable range for the aggregate cost of government (which in turn doesn't credit the portion generated by government), but individual total share is under 25% (since citizens only pay taxes in ONE state each, not all fifty).
Slashdot Mirror
1. Move to Trash is always the top item after the first separator, unless it is a packagage file, in which case it follows "Show Package Contents." This is consistent, non-arbitrary, and a GUI improvement to reduce mouse travel. The addition of new items in the third menu segment (e.g. Quick Look) placed the Trash option too far down and isolated from other file operations, so it was moved to the second segment.
2. The "More" menu now contains third party actions (and Automator) in a single space. It is also non-arbitrary, not dynamic, and not "Microsoftian" in any way. This achieves a shorter context menu while simultaneously opening options for Finder plug-ins, which in turn contradicts your first point: previously, third-party actions appeared in the middle of the "Apple" set of options, making context menus inconsistent. This solves that.
3. The contrast differential is pretty clear on folder icons. You're either fighting memory response or have not configured your workspace in a usable manner if your vision is that poor. In any case, folder icons are hardly a usability issue, and you're free to change them to whatever you want.
4. The stacks "icon pile" is a bit of a gimmick. It works for some uses (like being alerted that your download has finished when the icon appears on top), and not for others (arbitrary folders may appear with identical top icons). There's no need to use fan view (though you have to have a bit of an obsession to find it phallic), and frankly calling it an unintuitive feature because of the icon it uses is more than a little "blustering fool." Yes, it's new. Yes, it would be nice if they added the "Dock folder" view so people like you could just go back to the old way and shut up.
5. None of these details speaks of the pervasive level you implied in your comment. Menu options don't shift around like Windows' hide-and-seek menus, and the fact that "Move to Trash" has been moved higher up in the menu features so prominently in your list of complaints seems capricious at best. With the exception of some limited valid gripes about Stacks, you've mentioned one-off changes that you don't like as representative of a systemic failure. Where's the problem? Finish the thought. You've identified 'problems' (changes) without identifying the problem. I don't see a negative impact anywhere.
Things change. The simple fact of a change is never a problem in and of itself.
The modern concept of copyright is nothing more than a broadening and restructuring of printing patents. There's nothing terribly special about it. You still have to register with the government to get standing to sue; it has always been treated as property; it operates with the same fundamental protections (i.e. the same benefit is conferred). The ease and frequency with which they are granted plays no role in determining how long a legal framework has existed. It's the difference between width and depth.
Your line of argument alleges that the 'idea' of the Internet is only about ten years old because most people didn't really have access to it until then. That's pretty absurd. Any way you slice it, the idea of copyright is anything but new. If you had said that contemporary copyright doesn't resemble its predecessors, you'd be a little warmer, though still incorrect. It's basically only scope that has changed from 500 years ago. The rights are essentially the same, with obvious concessions for new technology.
The performer's royal commission granting monopoly rights, stretching back to Renaissance times (depending on whose research you believe, even further--there is evidence of protected scribes in ancient Egypt) was such a patent and granted certain rights and benefits to the creators of certain works of art and performances. In a time when reproduction had to be achieved by hand and staggering effort, a royal commission not only identified the author, but granted such individual(s) exclusive rights and privileges. We now recognize those rights in the forms of Contract and Property.
Ownership of 'works of the mind' in the modern sense has been part of European jurisprudence since, at the latest, the mid-16th Century. Property rights (typically, monopoly rights) in creators and producers dates back much, much further. Certainly no one can set a date for copyright's lineage after 1450 or so, since printing patents are at least that old in Western society--nearly 600 years ago in Venice (as old as Roman Typography itself)! That, of course, ignores several relevant earlier developments, but still proves the point: the concept of a copy right is not new unless you're also arguing that our othographical and punctuation system is also "new." If the popular argument on Slashdot is that copyrights are the granting of "monopoly rights" then you must follow that through to its logical origin, over a thousand years back. Of course, copyright is much more complex than that and the Slashdot argument is largely invalid, but it's a concession I'll make.
Copyright is, as previously mentioned, a derivative of the printing patent, which supplemented and in some cases replaced some RP letters patent, which have been granted going very far back indeed (at least to the Crusades, though different people interpret the evolution differently). Whether you want to draw the line at printing patents 500-some years ago or letters patents for performers and artists several centuries before that, it's certainly not a "new" idea in any practical timescale.
The bit about classical composers is a total red herring. The reason copyright didn't apply to them is because there was no technology to make copies. Composers enjoyed state protection throughout the era you dismiss. it took until the 17th century until the first copyright acts came into existance. Existence, and not strictly true. The first copyrights, if we're to accept the "monopolistic control" premise, are older than the Magna Carta. Further, Shakespeare in the 16th century battled reproductions of his Second Folio. He was not by any means the first to do so.
Copyright is an evolution of the premodern patent (before it took on the primary meaning of dealing with inventions), itself of course derived from letters patent, which have been issued for artists since before the printing press. The grant of commission was a patent granted by the sovereign to artists and performers.
The modern form is quite different, and the term copyright arose out of industrial-era technology first allowing the production of copies, no longer requiring reproduction by hand. Such protection was therefore very different in character in an era before reproductions were possible--royal protection by patent and recognition was itself sufficient. After the printing press, monopolies on printing extended that royal patent to restrictions on printing. After the phonograph, legal rights extended to protect that field. After vinyl albums and cassettes, after personal computers, after the Internet, you know the story. The protection has evolved and expanded over the course of a thousand years. It didn't just pop up one day in the 1880s.
Just like most computer users don't go digging around in the source code, most citizens have no need to scour casebooks. The law is much more than statutes. The law that directly concerns citizens is less than the entirety of statutes. Most of them are reasonably clear. Most people know when they're doing something they shouldn't.
How the entirety of law could possibly be relevant to the daily lives of every single citizen, I do not know. The DMV handbook is a pretty clear guide about driving. The statutes are written for a different audience, but are pretty clear to those willing to do the work, just like source code is to software. why don't we do the same with laws? Because it's not possible. You can scrap every law ever written and condense it down to a couple hundred page compendium. Given a few decades, the state of the law will have ballooned to thousands upon thousands of pages. It's human nature. Clarification and interpretation is an ongoing reality of law.
It's pure folly to think that laws can be simplified to the point where an average person can read a few sentences and walk away, knowing everything. The law can be summarized in a few sentences and can provide guidelines for people. Society is pretty good about compliance, but even the Ten Commandments is riddled with interpretive problems.
It's unnecessary fearmongering and pedanticism, misapplied to the wrong fields, that causes trouble. It's technically true that an average person technically violates a large number of laws in the course of normal life. That doesn't mean there are definite consequences, or that the law even contemplates imposing any. That's why law is complicated. It is not mechanical. It is not a formula. It is human.
It's colored by subtlety, it's flawed, it's not always perfectly consistent, and it's always evolving. Just like us.
The concept of copyright in law has existed for over a thousand years. Funny that a computer-oriented website would call it "not so very old."
What entitles you to pass judgment? What entitles you to enjoy productions without paying where you're so asked (for the simple and infantile excuse that you, The Decider, don't think they need more money)? What's so hard about rewarding artists whom you like or who make their content available for free and ignoring the others? If you don't like their business model, don't participate. It's that simple. Look elsewhere.
After all, "there are things like myspace, facebook, youtube, ifilm, break, liveleak, and a billion other places out there to get them recognized." You shouldn't have any trouble finding all your entertainment there. You don't need the studios and their greed and overpaid celebrities--but oh wait, you want to see their work anyway.
Well here's the rub. You're not worth your $50k salary. You shouldn't be paid more than a nurse or a school teacher or the people who clean your office at night. To that end, I'm not buying your game. I'm not playing your game. I'm not buying merchandise related to your game. I'm not going to talk about my game to my friends. Neither is most of the rest of the population. The market will react accordingly. See how beautifully that works?
You can construct as elaborate a rationale as you want, but it all comes down to "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?". There's no gun to your head and no pressing need for the content. You just want it, and you don't want to pay for it. You're too lazy to act in a principled manner and too greedy to do without. You're a leech, just like the corporate execs.
The answer is a wholesale revision of practices across the board to account for the changing social dynamic. Yes, the labels are asshats, but look around. So are many of the customers (including some of the vocal people here). The rhetoric and pie-in-the-sky solutions thrown around here are not based in reality. The big studios and labels aren't going anywhere. Copyright isn't going anywhere. Copyright infringement isn't going to be "okay" just because it's easy and because some whiny people with entitlement issues insist there's no harm.
Change isn't easy. People here don't make it any easier, though. Statements like the parent post and all the other rampant inane rationalizations that clutter these pages simply beg for a response. Who are they, passing judgment on the income of celebrities and saying they don't "need" it and so they're going to steal the copy (but they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so you know, it's cool, man) and enjoy it. What if someone worse off than you decided you didn't actually deserve your salary and did what they could to undermine it? I imagine you wouldn't be too pleased, either. Turns out there IS a way to say "we think you get paid too much"--it's called doing without. Anything else is just as big a leech as any label.
No, it's that $150,000 is the maximum for statutory damages. There is no maximum to the "actual" damages you can seek.
The problem with statutory damages is that they were established to combat piracy shops--not the collective product of thousands of infringers sharing a few hundred songs. There's pretty clearly a severe harm in the more widespread, low-level piracy (independent of the argument that *some* filesharing is a boon to the industry--it is, but that's an issue of a threshold of attention), but leveling the kinds of damages against individual persons that you would against a piracy kingpin was not contemplated by the law.
It's just one symptom of a larger problem society faces as it turns toward a more distributed, globally interconnected system. We won't be fighting many wars against large armies; you no longer need a large operation to be profitable at black market trades (drugs, piracy, smuggling, you name it). You just need a few people connected through the Internet. One the one hand it's a more nefarious and difficult threat, but on the other, there's lower individual culpability. Finding the right punishment is something that will take some trial and error.
For statutory damages, there should be a separate "P2P" class of damages that are substantially lower (but still substantial). For those peer-to-peer players that have thousands of songs being downloaded thousands of times, with losses in the millions, they could still put on a case for compensatory damages. It would save everyone's time and money. But the industry isn't going to back it so long as there are so many hostile pirates proving their point at every turn.
Actors and musicians also don't get paid for the time they actually spend doing most of the work--creating, rehearsing, making modifications, planning performances, and the like--you know, the kind of things YOU do at work while the money keeps rolling in before you finish. Artists, on the other hand, don't get paid until the work is done and rely on income for the performance. They get paid a lot because they get paid in lump sums. I am sorry but actors/actresses don't need to be paid millions for their roles in movies. But I bet you shop at stores run by corporations. Chances are you also work for one, contributing to their bottom line. Their executives make far more than most artists, even the very successful ones you so despise. Do you watch ESPN? Why do professional athletes get paid so much for so little. How about venture capitalists, lottery winners, and financial speculators who make huge amounts of money at once--but then make almost none for years?
Frankly, people like you who reduce an entire industry filled with legitimate artists, millions of middle-class employees, and hardworking entertainers who love what they do to the same level as some slimy fat cats in it are just as bad as the RIAA. By your logic, doctors are cheap hacks, too. You shouldn't pay your bill because you don't think they should charge so much or have unattractive offices. They don't deserve nice houses or things that you, Joe Armchair, would be jealous of. 90% of that stuff I wouldn't of seen to begin with so I don't feel guilty about taking what I wouldn't of seen or heard or enjoyed. A lot of it is educational Not educational enough, apparently. But you're right; there'd be plenty of income and jobs for everyone and a roaring economy if people just didn't pay for the things they didn't plan to buy. I mean, we wouldn't have enjoyed it if it weren't for the five-finger discount.
Not if you want to sue under Copyright Law. Only the people who own the copyright can sue for its infringement, and even then it is not as clear-cut a case of infringement as you would hope. Without assignment of copyright to some sort of working group, there's a very clear limit on who can sue, and it's not all kernel developers.
It's the kernel developers whose copyright has been breached, i.e. the owners of the code inappropriately modified. Different entities holding different copyrights on different parts of the same piece of software cannot sue for copyright infringement if their code was not improperly modified. This is why the FSF often seeks assignment of copyrights.
That's also setting aside the issue of whether a pure copyright claim would be successful. Generally speaking, it's not. The software is released with a determinable license and no clear timeframe for compliance, no process for dispute resolution, and no procedural repudiation. Falling out of compliance with a license can automatically terminate it, but notification of that termination is still generally required. It also does not mean that a court can simply pretend there is no license involved. Once distributed, the power to revoke has ended and only the power to terminate remains. These are fundamentally different scenarios in litigation.
Apart from being total hogwash, your lunacy isn't even internally consistent--you refer to property rights, which don't exist in the first place in the infantile binary state you've created. But you know that, or you'd log in.
I guess we live in a world with no rights whatsoever!
Troll.
Asshat, indeed.
You're simply saying that IP doesn't concern itself with physical works, which is not entirely accurate, but more importantly, wholly irrelevant. You are improperly conflating property with a collection of federal rules that govern (re)production of intangible concepts. That is not true, nor is your statement a logical possibility. You continually fail to apply a proper definition to property. It is simply not possible to conflate a superset of rules with a subset of those rules in the manner you suggest--conflation requires discrete elements. A and B cannot be conflated where B exists in A.
"Physical" property is a lay expression. There is no physicality at all in legal property. A copyright is no more or less "real" or "physical" or "tangible" than a real property right or a personalty right. This is something you consistently fail to comprehend in your Tourettic outbursts.
You are using a mistaken, incomplete, and wholly inaccurate understanding to argue a definition in a field with which you are not familiar, for reasons that escape comprehension. Words in the law do not carry the same meaning that they do in daily discourse, and legal terms of convenience do not have to make sense to the masses to be proper (e.g. your prior remarks are clearly an insane rant, yet you are not necessarily legally insane for any given purpose). If you would pause to absorb that simple fact, you might avoid making a fool of yourself.
Keep reading. If your leaden skull and six working brain cells work together and light in the right sequence, you might just get it (hint: it's not that tangible isn't a word [it is], it's that you're clearly just a moron out of your element). We'll be patient; we all know words are hard.
Property in a legal context is a set of rights. Nothing more, nothing less. It's really not that hard to understand, at least for someone with a fully functional brain.
And no, you can't kill people for "invading your property." (Here again though, you're improperly conflating lay property and legal property.) Typically, once they've entered and are not directly threatening you, the law does not allow you to use lethal force for the mere protection of possessions. But you're clearly not competent, so I don't expect you to understand that one, either.
There is no such thing as "tangible" property. Property in a legal context is a set of legal rights, nothing more or less. Personalty deals with tangible objects but it is just one kind of property, and not the most legally significant, most complex or eventful, or most litigated kind.
Again, had you bothered to read, this would not be an element of confusion for you.
Read the original assertion in the post I was replying to in order to get the correct context.
The true owner and the current, legally in possession owner are not always one and the same.
Well now, "IP infringement" is not theft. But that is simply because theft is not the same as stealing, something that someone spent all of their mod points burying last time I brought it up. Slashdot wants to make the semantic argument that "the owner is not deprived of anything" (which is not true, but more importantly, totally beside the point), but they don't ever want to hear people actually apply the science of semantics to those statements.
Infringement is not theft (just like it's not larceny, robbery, or [usually] conversion). It is, however, stealing (which is not by itself a crime, misdemeanor, or even a tort and moreover is not even universally a moral wrong).
If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.
Bzzzt. For starters, you can't "steal" real property. You can forge title, you can adversely possess, and you can trespass, but a parcel of land can't be taken from someone as personalty.
If you steal IP, the owner of those property rights no longer has them. Property is at its most fundamental the right to exclude. If you assert property rights to my property, I no longer have the full enjoyment of those rights.
What you're referring to is the object protected by property laws. Legal property is a set of rights. There is no physicality in any property. You certainly can't "own" land--no one has the authority to grant that ownership. You have possession and occupancy, which coupled with title becomes your property. You own a set of rights to the land, which is all we can enforce.
If you give me your real property, the total value remains constant (because you don't have it anymore). If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it
No, if you give me your IP I have it and you don't. Two people can't simultaneously have ownership in toto of Intellectual Property. The overall value remains the same, just as with anything else. Just like all other kinds of property (real property, among others), you can transfer parts of your rights. You can rent, lease, grant easements, grant shares, and have a lien imposed. With IP you can grant a license, grant an interest in ownership, or a number of other mechanisms.
Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain
Well on top of not understanding the word property or having ever completed any legal coursework, apparently you've taken to rewriting the rules of testacy and land use, too. You own your property as long as the law prescribes. There are different periods depending on the different types of title, and upon how come into possession of that property. In no case can a person own property in perpetuity.
IP, like all other property, passes with the estate as long as it is still in existence at time of death.
As for the "true owner" issue, you're wrong as with every other point you've made. The true owner of an intellectual work is its creator. Were it retained without the grant or protection of copyright or other relevant IP, it would remain the property of the creator through his existence, and pass to his estate. Copyrights and patents draw works into a public domain--that is their ultimate expression. Without them, there is no public domain except those works granted voluntarily into it. It is a bargained-for exchange. The government protects your work and grants certain exclusive rights with the full force of law in exchange for ultimately assuming ownership of those works on behalf of society. Unless collective consciousness created them (and to my knowledge, humans do not have telepathic powers), Lockean ownership is vested in the creator, not the public domain.
"IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing.
This is perhaps my favorite. Legally speaking, there's also no such thing as "Family Law" or any of the other loose practical areas so named and accepted. There is no "Securities Law" or any other field. It's called a term of convenience and it covers the field just as aptly as most others. Most legal fields contain elements that touch on diverse and utterly unrelated matters of law. The theories of relief and the elements of protection are not central to the categorization.
Coming from someone who doesn't understand what property is, it's rich that you have the gall to take a page from the RMS playbook, which is as universally derided as one w
Yawn. Your figures are disingenuous.
The United States has the third lowest tax burden of all OECD countries (~27%), beating out only Mexico (which taxes mostly goods and services) and South Korea (which benefits from a high export surplus and lower entitlement expenditures but even still only manages to fall in at one percentage point less).
Tax/GNI is not equivalent to budget/GDP. Budgets are not directly linked to current taxes and introduce a wild amount of error in your calculation. Your premise is faulty, and your site doesn't reflect the average citizen, but the average statistical fictional person-unit because unlike proper research methods you're attributing tax burdens to individuals where they are not taxed (both in redundant state spending overlap and in corporate taxes).
If you were to use comparable data sources for the UK, the amount would be proportionally increased, meaning that you're not really closing the gap at all with your "numbers". UK tax burden is ~43% higher than in the US, with an ~11% increase in budget/GDP (38% vs. 27% [and yes, that is inclusive]), reported by OECD for over 30 years and for dozens of countries, while your source is used by no one but nutters. Do you honestly believe what you wrote? You accepted a poorly-calculated figure (19%) and said "that's not all" and linked to a sensationalized and equally poorly-calculated different figure that proposes 33%--intimating that 1/3 of spending was missing. The "missing taxes" don't close the gap nearly as far as you suggest, and eerily like the saying, the truth is almost exactly in the middle.
People in the United States enjoy a ~30% lower tax burden than in the UK, all spending inclusive. It is the one of the lowest in the developed world and the lowest of the G8. At 27%, it's little more than half of the first-ranked 52% (Sweden). Coupled with the gigantic defense spending disparity (European-level spending on defense would cut US tax burden down into the 22-3% range), our tax burden is arguably too low compared to other developed nations.
Well, that's the oeuvre of a unitary system. There IS no state spending in the US sense of the word. The big-ticket items are nationalized, and you don't have the repetition in spending you do here (there's no second legislature to fund, no administrative overhead from state health programs). On the other hand, things like emergency services, libraries, and other services which are usually funded (indirectly) by state (as in U.S. state, not the traditional meaning of the term) revenue are instead funded locally. Local /municipal governments therefore cost "more" in effect than in the US because they're not propped up by US-state money.
For example, say local government spending on paper is 0.5% of PCI in the US and state spending is 2.3%. On paper in the UK, local government might be 2%--4x the US--but that's because the US gross budget numbers don't account for how much of the state budget just gets handed off to cities/counties (which might bring them closer to parity). So just 0.8% of the money, less administrative overhead, rolls back to national programs. All of these numbers are illustrative, not empirical.
The raw data are collected through different means for calculations like these. Depending on what purpose you want to serve, you can count the money based on who collects it (in unitary systems, usually predominantly the state ("nation")) or based on where the money is spent. In places like the UK that lack a US-style state, power and money is redistributed to compensate. Most of the power goes to the national level, but lots of the spending gets channeled down to the municipal/local level, where it makes more sense (roads, general social services [not big-ticket things like social insurance and health care, but the other kind], recorder's offices, courts).
People (including many professed "expert" attorneys) have been railing against a comment that makes no sense. There is no element of deprivation in taking, and by conclusory extension, stealing. Intent to deprive is an element of robbery and of theft. It is not an element of stealing. That's all I was saying.
"Copyright infringement isn't stealing" is flat out wrong. It isn't theft, conversion (usually), robbery, or larceny. It is stealing though (which is not by itself a crime, a misdemeanor, or a tort).
Over 30% less than the UK (or, from the other perspective, the UK spends almost 45% more), in fact, which is quite a significant difference in the grand scheme of things (the US has one of the lowest government costs in the world). In the business world, a difference that large would put one company's profits through the roof and the other company out of business. The UK is not the largest per-capita cost by a long shot, and we get much more done here for much less. Our defense spending is relied upon worldwide to varying extents, which further lightens the load for our European allies, allowing them to have much smaller defense budgets.
Remember that just as state and local spending is not included in the US figures, municipal spending doesn't appear in most other countries' figures--and its relative cost is higher in unitary systems, as local governments finance much of what a state government would.
Also note that state and local spending produces NOWHERE near the 10% difference you imply by your source (which would suggest that state spending is nearly half the federal budget). 32.7% is not the tax liability per capita by a long shot, because you're using a totally different methodology for calculations than the post you're replying to (government as share of GDP vs. dubious and misleading "tax freedom" dates). 32.7% is within the spin-inflated reasonable range for the aggregate cost of government (which in turn doesn't credit the portion generated by government), but individual total share is under 25% (since citizens only pay taxes in ONE state each, not all fifty).