It's still a bad deal, mainly because it's questionable as to whether or not she ever did it in the first place. Considering some of the arguments that the RIAA made involve time travel, I have a very hard time thinking that taking a $3k fine rather than risking a trial is such a good deal.
While in retrospect that was probably a poor decision, it's natural to assume that if the other party hasn't got any evidence that you're going to win.
You mean to go with their other wins. Wait, did they ever actually have any? Wasn't this the only one that they've one, well unless you count the previous attempt at this trial.
And oddly enough, it's mainly an argument that conservatives make when they don't get what they want. I don't recall a whole lot of judicial activism complaints coming as a result of SCOTUS overturning the DC hand gun ban or whenever the courts decide to overturn anti-discrimination legislation, even though those sorts of things are actually a lot more common than what they're whining about.
Sure there is and that's exactly why state law here requires the part asking for damages to prove them. Obviously, our state law in WA isn't applicable, but it is a matter of fair play that if one is asking for damages that one should have to demonstrate that the amount is commensurate to the damage suffered.
I think your understanding of the legal system is faulty. The courts are there specifically to interpret the law and set aside laws which are in violation of the constitution. You'll have to explain to me how exactly they do that if they're not allowed to change them. And yes I do realize that it's not really supposed to be done at lower levels of the court system.
I wish the US government would clarify abandonware in some fashion. Either grant the right to anybody that wishes to use it or start a sort of lost and found for abandoned software registry to license it out. It's completely against the intent of IP for it to be locked up and essentially owned by nobody while simultaneously preventing people from making use of it either.
I mean really, it's supposed to spur innovation and the creation of more, neither of which is furthered by protecting outfits that are no longer in existence.
That may well be, but they won't be getting any of my money as a result. I'm absolutely unwilling to rent games via steam. The fact that they retain the right to deactivate the entire account should there be a violation of the terms or the account is broken into is sufficient to convince me not to do business with them.
I'm not going to give them money when they can take all the items back without issuing a refund. I don't pirate games and I'll be damned if I have anything to do with software so crippled.
I think you're being overly optimistic. We don't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure. The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do, and it's almost always in the form of bailouts, protecting failing enterprises, insuring markets without demanding regulator authority. It's been going on for several decades and it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle.
What he's really complaining about is that there's a competitor that's out there forcing the price he can get to roughly approximate the marginal cost of production. Which is shocking for somebody that presumably believes in capitalism. Shocking because a competitive market pushes prices to just above the marginal cost of output.
OSS is a good example in software, credit unions in banking and hopefully a set of large scale co-op health insurers in the insurance industry. Corporations hate them because they have to compete on both price and quality. If there really were nothing to it they wouldn't be trying so hard to kill it.
It's not the wrong answer. The answer might not be what the legislature intended, but by the statute it was correct.
I'm fully in favor of changing the law to reflect the intention of the legislature, but it's completely inappropriate to have a law of this sort being interpreted in a way which deviates from the language used by that amount.
Some laws like the Sherman act are written in a way which is intentionally vague so that the judicial branch can refine it down to deal with the various forms of anti-trust misbehavior. But for something like this, that's bad, really, really bad. A person isn't generally possessing a JD and as such isn't likely to know that a whole lot about what the law actually means via case history.
While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time. Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that, the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize, but often times it's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another.
Well, because you are interested in getting work done, not running porn programs.
In any case, there are no widely available phones that are truly open. The G1 is controlled by T-mobile, and t-mobile can change features as it wishes. The same is true for the pre. Any freedom has one has is an illusion. The only open platfor I have seen is something like the Open Moko, which, apparently, no one wanted.
Umm, what? Hardly anybody buys the Open Moko offerings because they're not yet finished. Unless I've missed something they're not at the point where one can reasonably expect to use one as a day to day device without some sort of back up.
Actually the Nomad Jukebox came out in late 2000, and Apple was more or less duplicated the system that Creative had. Apple filed the same patent after Creative did. Here's a relevant link Creative wins MP3 player patent
But then again, why bother with facts when you can mod somebody -1 "I disagree"
That's not true. A) It costs a couple of hundred dollars more than the competition. B) It ripped off the UI from the competition with the exception of the buttons on the case. C) The iPod never had as many features as the competition did, you're probably thinking of attachments. D) The competition wasn't crap, I've used the competition for years, and I've never had to send it back for a costly battery replacement.
Given that file sharing is not going to vountarily go away, this statement becomes "information will continue to be locked down until the entire internet is locked down", which is probably true. We can't stop DRM any more than you can stop piracy.
That's not quite true, pirates are much more likely to win than that. It's a matter of will, and if you get enough people cracking the protection schemes quickly enough at launch, DRM will eventually go away. DRM is about control and profit, if the schemes are broken fast enough there's definitely a question of why spend many thousands of dollars locking something down that'll be cracked within a few weeks. Sure it does help with sales initially, but you're typically having to sell a hell of a lot of copies in order to break even and it does put one at a competitive disadvantage to those that don't need to sell those extra copies.
Not to mention the fact that there's a surprising number of people that don't pirate software that doesn't have DRM incorporated into it.
The Parent poster is right, Art is not something which really works under the model that the GP suggests. There is an element of truth in that being paid to create art provides one with the ability to do so without having to work all day and improves the energy and time available to create the work.
But it comes at a cost that can be quite high. As soon as you start having to worry about being paid, one has to worry about whether or not the piece is going to be marketable and that is a terribly damaging environment under which to create innovative work. It's not really much of a surprise that most of the masters were doing portraits, working for patrons or downright broke when they were turning out works that would later sell for millions. It's rare to say the least to be able to be a professional artist without putting a muzzle on ones own creativity.
DRM isn't going to help that situation out much, in fact it's probably going to hurt by eliminating people that are likely to get work that's somewhat out of the ordinary or in other ways unconventional.
No it isn't, and I wish people would stop suggesting that piracy is killing services off. Because it's not. Show me a platform that was killed by piracy and I'll show you a platform that was horribly managed. More often than not the DRM just limits the number of sales and raises the number of copies necessary to break even.
The problem is that customer service stinks and there's a belief in the entitlement to profit. Trust me there isn't one, and as soon as people start to acknowledge that the cost of an item is going to approach the marginal cost of another one, there's going to be no effort that effectively stops the piracy.
Worse still is the fact that piracy goes way up when one has to pirate in order to use the content as one wishes. You have the right to control the distribution of the copies of your work, not what people do with those copies, and as such DRM is a pretty egregious violation of ones rights. I have the right to sell any copies I've bought provided that I don't create any additional copies to sell.
I'm also sorry that you're so terribly misinformed about copyright law, copyright isn't there so that you can profit. It's there to maximize the amount of work being created, any profits you make are purely as a side effect of that goal. Fighting consumers to prevent them from using it on the platform of their choosing in whatever way they wish to is an egregious abuse of that right.
That's a solid point, I haven't had a single HDD go bad on me since I started using UPSes on all of my computers. I hadn't thought about what the power supply could do if it broke, doesn't surprise me that it could do that kind of damaged if it broke.
Most likely it's because the power supplies are really supposed to have that functionality built in. Or at any rate I'm not sure I'd trust the manufacturer to get that right if they've messed up in that fashion already.
I'm not sure why the parent and GP were modded funny, I refuse to buy drives by Maxtor or WD these days because of the crap quality of the past. Sure it's been long enough that they probably have fixed the issue, I just don't trust them, even running mirrored ZFS.
I'm still somewhat astonished that WD would think that it's acceptable to have external drives that work on OSes other than Win except for the power management features. Saying you're just supporting Win for a hard disk is nowhere near acceptable.
Personally, what I do at home is I use ZFS to mirror a pair of 1tb Seagate drives and that seems to work fine, it's not really the best set up, but it's hard to get such things located off site for the amount of money I have to spend.
That's not true. Copyright has limited exceptions that don't preclude profiting without paying. Patents are in a similar situation.
The main issue with IP is that it's not balanced with the needs of the populace for whom patents were created and we've got no laws against patent trolling. Patents really ought to be like trademarks use them or lose them, with possible a third option in cases where it's not being used for reasonable reasons. Not to mention a complete ban on blocking patents.
Um, no we don't. We have a centrist party and a fascist party. With the centrist party representing liberals by default. Believe me a conservative party and liberal party would be a serious step in the right direction.
Not necessarily, it depends what they're doing with it. This strikes me as an excellent way of distributing keys off band. From what I can tell they're just promising to secure the networks in that time, and that's possible with what they've got. Theoretically speaking.
Well, that and ensuring that the keys are unobserved.
And where exactly do you find people that want to be janitors and coal miners? It's a rather Utopian view to suggest that it's something that everybody can have.
If you've ever met somebody involved with marketing or fund raising you'd realize that they see $ on everything. Trust me, they'd charge a person being given an award for the plaque if they could get away with it. The only thing that ever kills ideas like that is if people opt to have nothing than accept whatever it is.
It's because whenever people come up with a viable alternative the industry kills it by demanding that legislators make it illegal. They're not always successful, but in most cases they are. Free markets are all well and good, as long as they're actually free. The problem is that in places like the US, we've got a free market when it's convenient to business and a heavily regulated market when it's inconvenient for the consumer.
The cost of TV would go down dramatically if people had the opportunity to make choices. Right now where I'm living, I've got basically 4 choices. No TV, Satellite, Cable or free to air. Of those, really Satellite is the only option with multiple choices, making that a grand spanking 5 choices over all, of which 3 have very little incentive to compete on cost too vigorously.
Which is coincidentally why the news of online ads costing more per viewer is so significant. It's much more difficult to abuse ones market position if a provider from anywhere in the nation has to compete with all the other ones.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still a bad deal, mainly because it's questionable as to whether or not she ever did it in the first place. Considering some of the arguments that the RIAA made involve time travel, I have a very hard time thinking that taking a $3k fine rather than risking a trial is such a good deal.
While in retrospect that was probably a poor decision, it's natural to assume that if the other party hasn't got any evidence that you're going to win.
You mean to go with their other wins. Wait, did they ever actually have any? Wasn't this the only one that they've one, well unless you count the previous attempt at this trial.
And oddly enough, it's mainly an argument that conservatives make when they don't get what they want. I don't recall a whole lot of judicial activism complaints coming as a result of SCOTUS overturning the DC hand gun ban or whenever the courts decide to overturn anti-discrimination legislation, even though those sorts of things are actually a lot more common than what they're whining about.
Sure there is and that's exactly why state law here requires the part asking for damages to prove them. Obviously, our state law in WA isn't applicable, but it is a matter of fair play that if one is asking for damages that one should have to demonstrate that the amount is commensurate to the damage suffered.
I think your understanding of the legal system is faulty. The courts are there specifically to interpret the law and set aside laws which are in violation of the constitution. You'll have to explain to me how exactly they do that if they're not allowed to change them. And yes I do realize that it's not really supposed to be done at lower levels of the court system.
I wish the US government would clarify abandonware in some fashion. Either grant the right to anybody that wishes to use it or start a sort of lost and found for abandoned software registry to license it out. It's completely against the intent of IP for it to be locked up and essentially owned by nobody while simultaneously preventing people from making use of it either.
I mean really, it's supposed to spur innovation and the creation of more, neither of which is furthered by protecting outfits that are no longer in existence.
That may well be, but they won't be getting any of my money as a result. I'm absolutely unwilling to rent games via steam. The fact that they retain the right to deactivate the entire account should there be a violation of the terms or the account is broken into is sufficient to convince me not to do business with them.
I'm not going to give them money when they can take all the items back without issuing a refund. I don't pirate games and I'll be damned if I have anything to do with software so crippled.
I think you're being overly optimistic. We don't protect stagnation we protect and encourage failure. The US government tinkers in the economy more than most other free nations do, and it's almost always in the form of bailouts, protecting failing enterprises, insuring markets without demanding regulator authority. It's been going on for several decades and it's led us from one bubble to the next, and it won't stop for at least one more boom bust cycle.
What he's really complaining about is that there's a competitor that's out there forcing the price he can get to roughly approximate the marginal cost of production. Which is shocking for somebody that presumably believes in capitalism. Shocking because a competitive market pushes prices to just above the marginal cost of output.
OSS is a good example in software, credit unions in banking and hopefully a set of large scale co-op health insurers in the insurance industry. Corporations hate them because they have to compete on both price and quality. If there really were nothing to it they wouldn't be trying so hard to kill it.
It's not the wrong answer. The answer might not be what the legislature intended, but by the statute it was correct.
I'm fully in favor of changing the law to reflect the intention of the legislature, but it's completely inappropriate to have a law of this sort being interpreted in a way which deviates from the language used by that amount.
Some laws like the Sherman act are written in a way which is intentionally vague so that the judicial branch can refine it down to deal with the various forms of anti-trust misbehavior. But for something like this, that's bad, really, really bad. A person isn't generally possessing a JD and as such isn't likely to know that a whole lot about what the law actually means via case history.
While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time. Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that, the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize, but often times it's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another.
Well, because you are interested in getting work done, not running porn programs.
In any case, there are no widely available phones that are truly open. The G1 is controlled by T-mobile, and t-mobile can change features as it wishes. The same is true for the pre. Any freedom has one has is an illusion. The only open platfor I have seen is something like the Open Moko, which, apparently, no one wanted.
Umm, what? Hardly anybody buys the Open Moko offerings because they're not yet finished. Unless I've missed something they're not at the point where one can reasonably expect to use one as a day to day device without some sort of back up.
Actually the Nomad Jukebox came out in late 2000, and Apple was more or less duplicated the system that Creative had. Apple filed the same patent after Creative did. Here's a relevant link Creative wins MP3 player patent
But then again, why bother with facts when you can mod somebody -1 "I disagree"
That's not true. A) It costs a couple of hundred dollars more than the competition. B) It ripped off the UI from the competition with the exception of the buttons on the case. C) The iPod never had as many features as the competition did, you're probably thinking of attachments. D) The competition wasn't crap, I've used the competition for years, and I've never had to send it back for a costly battery replacement.
Given that file sharing is not going to vountarily go away, this statement becomes "information will continue to be locked down until the entire internet is locked down", which is probably true. We can't stop DRM any more than you can stop piracy.
That's not quite true, pirates are much more likely to win than that. It's a matter of will, and if you get enough people cracking the protection schemes quickly enough at launch, DRM will eventually go away. DRM is about control and profit, if the schemes are broken fast enough there's definitely a question of why spend many thousands of dollars locking something down that'll be cracked within a few weeks. Sure it does help with sales initially, but you're typically having to sell a hell of a lot of copies in order to break even and it does put one at a competitive disadvantage to those that don't need to sell those extra copies.
Not to mention the fact that there's a surprising number of people that don't pirate software that doesn't have DRM incorporated into it.
The Parent poster is right, Art is not something which really works under the model that the GP suggests. There is an element of truth in that being paid to create art provides one with the ability to do so without having to work all day and improves the energy and time available to create the work.
But it comes at a cost that can be quite high. As soon as you start having to worry about being paid, one has to worry about whether or not the piece is going to be marketable and that is a terribly damaging environment under which to create innovative work. It's not really much of a surprise that most of the masters were doing portraits, working for patrons or downright broke when they were turning out works that would later sell for millions. It's rare to say the least to be able to be a professional artist without putting a muzzle on ones own creativity.
DRM isn't going to help that situation out much, in fact it's probably going to hurt by eliminating people that are likely to get work that's somewhat out of the ordinary or in other ways unconventional.
No it isn't, and I wish people would stop suggesting that piracy is killing services off. Because it's not. Show me a platform that was killed by piracy and I'll show you a platform that was horribly managed. More often than not the DRM just limits the number of sales and raises the number of copies necessary to break even.
The problem is that customer service stinks and there's a belief in the entitlement to profit. Trust me there isn't one, and as soon as people start to acknowledge that the cost of an item is going to approach the marginal cost of another one, there's going to be no effort that effectively stops the piracy.
Worse still is the fact that piracy goes way up when one has to pirate in order to use the content as one wishes. You have the right to control the distribution of the copies of your work, not what people do with those copies, and as such DRM is a pretty egregious violation of ones rights. I have the right to sell any copies I've bought provided that I don't create any additional copies to sell.
I'm also sorry that you're so terribly misinformed about copyright law, copyright isn't there so that you can profit. It's there to maximize the amount of work being created, any profits you make are purely as a side effect of that goal. Fighting consumers to prevent them from using it on the platform of their choosing in whatever way they wish to is an egregious abuse of that right.
That's a solid point, I haven't had a single HDD go bad on me since I started using UPSes on all of my computers. I hadn't thought about what the power supply could do if it broke, doesn't surprise me that it could do that kind of damaged if it broke.
Most likely it's because the power supplies are really supposed to have that functionality built in. Or at any rate I'm not sure I'd trust the manufacturer to get that right if they've messed up in that fashion already.
I'm not sure why the parent and GP were modded funny, I refuse to buy drives by Maxtor or WD these days because of the crap quality of the past. Sure it's been long enough that they probably have fixed the issue, I just don't trust them, even running mirrored ZFS.
I'm still somewhat astonished that WD would think that it's acceptable to have external drives that work on OSes other than Win except for the power management features. Saying you're just supporting Win for a hard disk is nowhere near acceptable.
Personally, what I do at home is I use ZFS to mirror a pair of 1tb Seagate drives and that seems to work fine, it's not really the best set up, but it's hard to get such things located off site for the amount of money I have to spend.
That's not true. Copyright has limited exceptions that don't preclude profiting without paying. Patents are in a similar situation.
The main issue with IP is that it's not balanced with the needs of the populace for whom patents were created and we've got no laws against patent trolling. Patents really ought to be like trademarks use them or lose them, with possible a third option in cases where it's not being used for reasonable reasons. Not to mention a complete ban on blocking patents.
Um, no we don't. We have a centrist party and a fascist party. With the centrist party representing liberals by default. Believe me a conservative party and liberal party would be a serious step in the right direction.
But the important question is: "Do aimbots pass the turing test?"
Well, technically, any man that uses a laptop on their lap is going to have issues with future fertility.
Heh, I weep for the person that modded you down. Hopefully having their house bombed will be a lesson to the rest.
Not necessarily, it depends what they're doing with it. This strikes me as an excellent way of distributing keys off band. From what I can tell they're just promising to secure the networks in that time, and that's possible with what they've got. Theoretically speaking.
Well, that and ensuring that the keys are unobserved.
And where exactly do you find people that want to be janitors and coal miners? It's a rather Utopian view to suggest that it's something that everybody can have.
If you've ever met somebody involved with marketing or fund raising you'd realize that they see $ on everything. Trust me, they'd charge a person being given an award for the plaque if they could get away with it. The only thing that ever kills ideas like that is if people opt to have nothing than accept whatever it is.
It's because whenever people come up with a viable alternative the industry kills it by demanding that legislators make it illegal. They're not always successful, but in most cases they are. Free markets are all well and good, as long as they're actually free. The problem is that in places like the US, we've got a free market when it's convenient to business and a heavily regulated market when it's inconvenient for the consumer.
The cost of TV would go down dramatically if people had the opportunity to make choices. Right now where I'm living, I've got basically 4 choices. No TV, Satellite, Cable or free to air. Of those, really Satellite is the only option with multiple choices, making that a grand spanking 5 choices over all, of which 3 have very little incentive to compete on cost too vigorously.
Which is coincidentally why the news of online ads costing more per viewer is so significant. It's much more difficult to abuse ones market position if a provider from anywhere in the nation has to compete with all the other ones.