The counter to them actually getting that larger piece isn't to have them ask for less...it's for the other people providing value to the business to say no.
Sadly, isn't it true the labels can do pretty much anything they want with (to) new and unsophisticated artists? Don't most just sign "the contract" without reading it because "my God we're going to be BIG they're giving us a MILLION DOLLARS to record our first gold record!" The percentages and revenue sources in the contracts will simply change and it's done. No chance for ANYONE to say "no". I'll bet the labels as a matter of course helpfully refer new artists to a list of "independent" attorneys who will really do a great job of reading those contracts and representing them. This is an old story, the business unsophisticate's getting screwed by the sharks, that takes advantage of unequal bargaining power. Possibly, pre-successful musicians need an honest union (most unions are probably honest and work hard for their members).
Either that or the megabands need to help recognize and promote talent to the point it begins to succeed without the likes of Sony/BMG, the most expensive "agents" in the world.
Who but, say, Radiohead is in a better position to know what new, great music is? Let them include some links on their site to encourage attention to these bands.
You know, they say power corrupts; and we KNOW money does. Sony was well-liked and well-respected, I think, until they bought media rights and essentially became a media company. Greed, it seems, can poison anything. What do consumers around the world think of Sony now?
You know, Ray, I was cheered to see a Federal class action under RICO against the mafiAA, but then I began to read the counterclaim, and I realized that all of the complained-of acts are complained of because of the way plaintiff-in-counterclaim wishes to characterize them-- and in my experience, this is the easiest kind of complaint to defeat, since all you have to do is "reframe" the acts to show a colorable alternative interpretation (an arguably applicable statutory basis for the act), and BAM! Now you have to litigate the whole statute or at least whether some too-nebulous combination of deeds falls within or without it, which you ain't going to do in the context of an action by a copyright holder against an alleged infringer without the wealth of Croesus... How can you, as a Plaintiff, meet your burden of proof if there is a halfway reasonable alternative to calling the acts "extortion", for instance? Big Music says well, even if there is some evidence this was in fact extortion, there is an equal weight of evidence we are properly using the statutes, ambiguous and unlitigated as they are... In short, the counterclaim looks good, but is doomed, I think. Charlie Nesson, on the other hand, is doing God's work and doing it well. (grin)
Now how would you dirt dive a Beowolf Cluster? (grin)
Say, maybe we need to create some insider Slashdot / Skydiver memes. It occurs to me that skydiving slashdotters might have a great deal in common. Maybe a mail list or forum could be good. If you think you might be interested why not send your email address to lmalinofsky (at) gmail (dot) com? We already have three members!
If you stay with skydiving you are in for some of the grandest adventures of your life.
With 1000 jumps and as a former AFF JM I can tell you it only gets better as you go along. As in some business instances, the novice's simple (and therefore more basic) mistakes tend more towards permanence than the expert's. But trust me, there is no point in skydiving (and as I suppose you would say, in business) at which you can safely relax your vigilance. Blue skies, -lwm D-10630
You're right. IAAL and non-competes, to be enforceable, must be reasonable under the circumstances as to both duration and geographical area. Of course, in this case there will be an issue of fact (namely whether his specific duties are likely to result in transfer of secrets), normally resolved by a jury, but in this case due to the irreparable harm of excluding him from employment for a year, more likely to be decided by a judge on briefed motions.
If wiping out student loans became legitimized and common, or even if it became merely legal, how much would tuition have to be raised to cover the ever-increasing numbers of graduate non-payers? I remember reading about 20 years ago about a law-school graduate who financed his education with credit cards and declared bankruptcy the day he graduated. Guess what? He was denied admission to the bar as "morally unfit". Loans from an education institution whose repayment subsidizes tuition and interest rates of new students should *never* be dischargeable, even if other debts of the same debtors are fair game for expungement.
Must be a fun job to use the law to destroy evil. Kind of like that old movie The Rainmaker. If I were Ray Beckerman, I would feel like I were in a movie.
I'm sure Charlie Nesson feels that way too. If Nesson wins, it just about pulls the rug out from under *all* of the **AA lawsuits. Go Charlie! Go Harvard! (Even misguided as Harvard was to deny my application for admission many years ago. All is forgiven now.) (grin)
Must be a fun job to use the law to destroy evil. Kind of like that old movie The Rainmaker. If I were Ray Beckerman, I would feel like I were in a movie.
I'm sure Charlie Nesson feels that way too. If Nesson wins, it just about pulls the rug out from under ALL of the **AA lawsuits. Go Charlie! Go Harvard!
I think the RIAA's reasoning for charging so much is based on the principle that the user shares the song with an infinite number of other users.
This thinking amounts to an unreasonable aggregation of statutory damages which Professor Neeson likens, in this case, to a criminal penalty, improperly used to empower the media industry.
Let's stop talking about the RIAA-- it is Sony, Warner, Universal / BMG, etc. that deserve our vengeance for the nightmare they have wrought, falsely, in the Law's name.
I had tears in my eyes when I finished reading this:
The RIAA intimidates and steamrolls accused infringers into
settling before they have their day in court and before the
courts can weigh the merits of their defenses. The inherent
dangers in allowing a single interest group, desperate in the
face of technological change, led by a voracious, cohesive,
extraordinarily well-funded and deeply experienced legal team
doing battle with pro se defendants, armed with a statute
written by them and lobbied and quietly passed through a
compliant congress, to march defendants through the federal
courts to make examples out of them should lead this Court to
say "stop."
These cases CRY OUT for the legislature to act. "Amnesty for File Sharers" should be the rallying cry. Hell, we granted amnesty to conscientious objectors who relocated to Canada during the Vietnam war. Why can't we do it for these poor folks? Are you listening, Ms. Pelosi? How about the File Sharers Amnesty Act of 2008? This travesty has gone beyond black comedy into the world of Kafka and nightmare.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in Texas, don't they have enshrined in their legal system the doctrine of "He done needed killin"
That's been unavailable as a defense for probably more than 100 years.
The counter to them actually getting that larger piece isn't to have them ask for less...it's for the other people providing value to the business to say no.
Sadly, isn't it true the labels can do pretty much anything they want with (to) new and unsophisticated artists? Don't most just sign "the contract" without reading it because "my God we're going to be BIG they're giving us a MILLION DOLLARS to record our first gold record!" The percentages and revenue sources in the contracts will simply change and it's done. No chance for ANYONE to say "no". I'll bet the labels as a matter of course helpfully refer new artists to a list of "independent" attorneys who will really do a great job of reading those contracts and representing them. This is an old story, the business unsophisticate's getting screwed by the sharks, that takes advantage of unequal bargaining power. Possibly, pre-successful musicians need an honest union (most unions are probably honest and work hard for their members).
Either that or the megabands need to help recognize and promote talent to the point it begins to succeed without the likes of Sony/BMG, the most expensive "agents" in the world.
Who but, say, Radiohead is in a better position to know what new, great music is? Let them include some links on their site to encourage attention to these bands.
You know, they say power corrupts; and we KNOW money does. Sony was well-liked and well-respected, I think, until they bought media rights and essentially became a media company. Greed, it seems, can poison anything. What do consumers around the world think of Sony now?
This is a happy day for the entire science and industry of information technology, and the decline of the Microsoft empire.
Note too the latest releases of FreeBSD have begun to integrate ZFS support....
How about Usuntzu?
Fool around with Linux names on /. and you're dabbling in the art of war....
Oh good, someone got it! (grin)
You know, Ray, I was cheered to see a Federal class action under RICO against the mafiAA, but then I began to read the counterclaim, and I realized that all of the complained-of acts are complained of because of the way plaintiff-in-counterclaim wishes to characterize them-- and in my experience, this is the easiest kind of complaint to defeat, since all you have to do is "reframe" the acts to show a colorable alternative interpretation (an arguably applicable statutory basis for the act), and BAM! Now you have to litigate the whole statute or at least whether some too-nebulous combination of deeds falls within or without it, which you ain't going to do in the context of an action by a copyright holder against an alleged infringer without the wealth of Croesus... How can you, as a Plaintiff, meet your burden of proof if there is a halfway reasonable alternative to calling the acts "extortion", for instance? Big Music says well, even if there is some evidence this was in fact extortion, there is an equal weight of evidence we are properly using the statutes, ambiguous and unlitigated as they are... In short, the counterclaim looks good, but is doomed, I think. Charlie Nesson, on the other hand, is doing God's work and doing it well. (grin)
Now how would you dirt dive a Beowolf Cluster? (grin)
Say, maybe we need to create some insider Slashdot / Skydiver memes. It occurs to me that skydiving slashdotters might have a great deal in common. Maybe a mail list or forum could be good. If you think you might be interested why not send your email address to lmalinofsky (at) gmail (dot) com? We already have three members!
If you stay with skydiving you are in for some of the grandest adventures of your life.
Awesome! Help me out, I'm trying to make skydiving analogies the new meme, replacing car analogies :-)
That would indeed be awesome. I can be emailed at lmalinofsky (at) gmail (dot) com --Regards, lwm
Respectfully, I have to tell you I found more heat than light in your argument.
So much for proofreading crap.
There, fixed that for you.
Or a Beowolf cluster of Botnets!
With 1000 jumps and as a former AFF JM I can tell you it only gets better as you go along. As in some business instances, the novice's simple (and therefore more basic) mistakes tend more towards permanence than the expert's. But trust me, there is no point in skydiving (and as I suppose you would say, in business) at which you can safely relax your vigilance. Blue skies, -lwm D-10630
A skydiver would know. Ever panic and make a mistake? Skydivers don't do that often.
I am a former skydiver, and I can vouch for this. Generally, skydivers only make mistakes once.
What if the soul is an emergent property only of biological systems?
When was this, like 1969?
You're right. IAAL and non-competes, to be enforceable, must be reasonable under the circumstances as to both duration and geographical area. Of course, in this case there will be an issue of fact (namely whether his specific duties are likely to result in transfer of secrets), normally resolved by a jury, but in this case due to the irreparable harm of excluding him from employment for a year, more likely to be decided by a judge on briefed motions.
If wiping out student loans became legitimized and common, or even if it became merely legal, how much would tuition have to be raised to cover the ever-increasing numbers of graduate non-payers? I remember reading about 20 years ago about a law-school graduate who financed his education with credit cards and declared bankruptcy the day he graduated. Guess what? He was denied admission to the bar as "morally unfit". Loans from an education institution whose repayment subsidizes tuition and interest rates of new students should *never* be dischargeable, even if other debts of the same debtors are fair game for expungement.
Must be a fun job to use the law to destroy evil. Kind of like that old movie The Rainmaker. If I were Ray Beckerman, I would feel like I were in a movie.
I'm sure Charlie Nesson feels that way too. If Nesson wins, it just about pulls the rug out from under *all* of the **AA lawsuits. Go Charlie! Go Harvard! (Even misguided as Harvard was to deny my application for admission many years ago. All is forgiven now.) (grin)
Must be a fun job to use the law to destroy evil. Kind of like that old movie The Rainmaker. If I were Ray Beckerman, I would feel like I were in a movie.
I'm sure Charlie Nesson feels that way too. If Nesson wins, it just about pulls the rug out from under ALL of the **AA lawsuits. Go Charlie! Go Harvard!
P2P Has been single handedly neutered by the likes of comcast.
That is a huge overstatement.
You may have heard the media interests sued Beckerman directly in an attempt to silence him. That suit may be taking some of his time.
I think the RIAA's reasoning for charging so much is based on the principle that the user shares the song with an infinite number of other users.
This thinking amounts to an unreasonable aggregation of statutory damages which Professor Neeson likens, in this case, to a criminal penalty, improperly used to empower the media industry.
Let's stop talking about the RIAA-- it is Sony, Warner, Universal / BMG, etc. that deserve our vengeance for the nightmare they have wrought, falsely, in the Law's name.
The RIAA intimidates and steamrolls accused infringers into settling before they have their day in court and before the courts can weigh the merits of their defenses. The inherent dangers in allowing a single interest group, desperate in the face of technological change, led by a voracious, cohesive, extraordinarily well-funded and deeply experienced legal team doing battle with pro se defendants, armed with a statute written by them and lobbied and quietly passed through a compliant congress, to march defendants through the federal courts to make examples out of them should lead this Court to say "stop."
These cases CRY OUT for the legislature to act. "Amnesty for File Sharers" should be the rallying cry. Hell, we granted amnesty to conscientious objectors who relocated to Canada during the Vietnam war. Why can't we do it for these poor folks? Are you listening, Ms. Pelosi? How about the File Sharers Amnesty Act of 2008? This travesty has gone beyond black comedy into the world of Kafka and nightmare.