When you decide to skirt tax laws, you are able to directly benefit from the greater net income at the end of the day. Shareholders of companies that skirt tax laws benefit greatly because of the greater net revenues. So it seems that everyone should be happy, right? More money to the private sector and we (the private sector) know how to best spend our money.
But what about social services that are necessary to protect the least among us? Rousseau described a social contract which requires each citizen to give up some rights in order to preserve order and safety. John Rawls describes a theory of social justice which demands a safety net which can protect those who are the most unfortunate, at the cost of additional taxes on those most able to pay.
Aren't these companies who take advantage of these ethically questionable tax shelters 1) not paying their fair share to support the social safety net, and 2) putting the onus on the individual citizens/employees who cannot easily move to tax-free states?
What game-changing idea does Tesla really bring to the table? What idea would let them survive in the competitive car market?
Their market isn't automobiles (or even sports cars), it's electric vehicles. There would need to significant financial incentives for Tesla to become a serious contender in the automobile market. Asit is, there is a little incentive to buy a greener car these days, but not enough to cover the gap in price.
No. It's pure naivete to think that Tesla will somehow continue in this business as a car manufacturer. They don't even manufacture the body of the car they sell. They are an IP company through and through. Their only hope is to have a good patent chest and find licensees.
Daimler seems to be interested, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones who want to build an electric vehicle.
Anyone who thinks Tesla will be around as a car manufacturer 3 years from now ought to buy stock in Moller today.
I'm just angered by the insinuance that somehow because someone owns something that was granted to them by the government that somehow they have a monopoly over it and the right to shut me out on a whim.
What is hopeful is how Tesla is working with the auto industry to spread their battery and electric vehicle patents in a cooperative way rather than trying to submarine them. I see a profitable road ahead for Tesla if they can keep their IP chest ahead of the curve.
8. What constitutes trademark dilution? In addition to bringing an action for infringement, owners of trademarks can also bring an action for trademark dilution under either federal or state law. Under federal law, a dilution claim can be brought only if the mark is "famous." In deciding whether a mark is famous, the courts will look to the following factors: (1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness; (2) the duration and extent of use; (3) the amount of advertising and publicity; (4) the geographic extent of the market; (5) the channels of trade; (6) the degree of recognition in trading areas; (7) any use of similar marks by third parties; (8) whether the mark is registered. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). Kodak, Exxon, and Xerox are all examples of famous marks. Under state law, a mark need not be famous in order to give rise to a dilution claim. Instead, dilution is available if: (1) the mark has "selling power" or, in other words, a distinctive quality; and (2) the two marks are substantially similar. Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 875 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1989).
Once the prerequisites for a dilution claim are satisfied, the owner of a mark can bring an action against any use of that mark that dilutes the distinctive quality of that mark, either through "blurring" or "tarnishment" of that mark; unlike an infringement claim, likelihood of confusion is not necessary. Blurring occurs when the power of the mark is weakened through its identification with dissimilar goods. For example, Kodak brand bicycles or Xerox brand cigarettes. Although neither example is likely to cause confusion among consumers, each dilutes the distinctive quality of the mark. Tarnishment occurs when the mark is cast in an unflattering light, typically through its association with inferior or unseemly products or services. So, for example, in a recent case, ToysRUs successfully brought a tarnishment claim against adultsrus.com, a pornographic web-site. Toys "R" Us v. Akkaoui, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1836 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 1996).
(1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness The distinctiveness is there, as explained in my original reply
(2) the duration and extent of use Duration is there, and the intent to use has not been abandoned, as explained in my original reply
(3) the amount of advertising and publicity Definitely arguable. They have a website and are the first hit on Google for "edge game" and "edge games".
(4) the geographic extent of the market US and UK, according the the Edge Games website.
(5) the channels of trade They are a game company and seem intent on releasing their existing portfolio to the Wii.
(6) the degree of recognition in trading areas Edge Games was a decently sized name back in the C64 days. Nowadays they are a bit infamous for stiffing their developers, but is infamy different from fame?
(7) any use of similar marks by third parties I suppose Gillette probably has a trademark on Edge for their shaving gel.
(8) whether the mark is registered Seems like it.
Langdell's Edge trademark seems to fit the requirements of fame.
The naming of the game certainly seems to dilute the trademark. Can the publishers of Edge (the game) claim that the name is sufficiently generic enough?
At the most, though, Langdell would only be able to get injunctive relief as it is unlikely that the infringers willfully traded on the plaintiff's goodwill in using the mark.
I'm not sure you're familiar with trademark law in the United States either. Your definition of "use" is unclear and its applicability in this case is questionable.
3. What prerequisites must a mark satisfy in order to serve as a trademark? An arbitrary or fanciful mark is a mark that bears no logical relationship to the underlying product. For example, the words "Exxon," "Kodak," and "Apple" bear no inherent relationship to their underlying products (respectively, gasoline, cameras, or computers). Similarly, the Nike "swoosh" bears no inherent relationship to athletic shoes. Arbitrary or fanciful marks are inherently distinctive -- i.e. capable of identifying an underlying product -- and are given a high degree of protection.
So the trademark "Edge" in reference to games is, given the history of the company, inherently distinctive and thus fulfills the requirements for being a trademark.
4. How do you acquire rights in a trademark? Assuming that a trademark qualifies for protection, rights to a trademark can be acquired in one of two ways: (1) by being the first to use the mark in commerce...
Again, Langdell seems to have this base covered so far as anyone can prove.
Here we get to the crux of your post.
6. Can trademark rights be lost? A trademark is abandoned when its use is discontinued with an intent not to resume its use. Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. The basic idea is that trademark law only protects marks that are being used, and parties are not entitled to warehouse potentially useful marks.
But if you take a look, Edge Games has a website, claims to be developing games, and is in no way abandoning its trademark to genericity. So while your claim that Edge Games hasn't released something for years may be true, it may not be relevant.
If obscurity were the measure by which a trademark claim could be defended, there are many companies (many of them English!) that would be unable to protect their trademark.
Langdell's company makes games. A quick browsing of Wikipedia shows that "lol ura fagit" and that Edge Games is currently in development to bring their C64 games to the Wii.
So, being the trademark holder, Langdell actually needs to do what he can to protect it or risk losing it. This isn't being a troll, it's looking out for one's own best interest. His trademark is old, on the order of decades. Why would he relinquish it now to some upstart?
The extension/patch I have created is fairly robust, as it includes configuration options, help files, and several additional files.
Your definition seems to mean "complete" or something along those lines. However in actual industry usage, robustness is a measure of software quality as tested. You may be providing a lot of configuration options, help files, and several additional files (what does this mean?), but are you providing well-tested, exception-proof code?
What is your test matrix like? What is the MTTF among your users? How many users are actually using it?
The patch you provide can be the most beautiful set of files ever created, but if the maintainer needs to fix all the bugs you created because you didn't test anything except the most obvious cases, then you aren't helping.
Something to keep in mind as you graduate from university programming to actual industry programming.
Sometimes OSS is a lot like butch lesbians. Take your question, for example: Has anyone else submitted extensions to what seems to be a black hole? Yes, sometimes a strap-on is precisely what is needed to fill a black hole.
But I digress.
What is the specific project you're fixing up? Is it fairly frequently updated by the maintainer?
That is really the point I think you need to figure out. If the maintainer has disappeared and does not update the package, then there's really no point in involving that person at all. He isn't the maintainer; you are. The only problem is, as you pointed out, if the package is updated and your patches aren't included, you'll need to provide patch updates to any of your users.
However, that said, what is more important to you? This package or your time? You don't work for the project, you work for your employers. Release this patch to whomever you like and give them the source. There's no reason you need to kill yourself trying to keep it updated if it works great for you now on the project version you targeted.
Why curious? The entire anti-nicotine/anti-smoking section has almost nothing to do with the research in the article. It's a message deliberately inserted to discourage tobacco/nicotine use.
Maybe you missed the highlighted portions again. I quoted a lot of text, so maybe you didn't see the bolded and italicized text.
This is clearly not the doctor's words: Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential
This is what the doctor said: Mohammed Shoaib, a psychopharmacologist from the University of Newcastle, in the north of England, commented that nicotine-based therapies would offer a significant advancement over current treatments
The doctor said that nicotine treatment "would offer significant advancement over current treatments". The government mouthpiece at Cosmos contradicts this by saying "nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment".
That's where all this universal healthcare talk becomes scary. No pro-nicotine article can pass without the preemptive mentioning that nicotine and smoking are bad for you. Goodbye freedom of the press.
The participants showed improvement in brain function, including less impulsive behaviour and better levels of attention, which are both unrelated to nicotine withdrawal, said Barr.... Ultimately, the aim of the research is to reduce the number of schizophrenics who smoke cigarettes.
On average, life expectancy in people with the condition is reduced by 10 years in large part due to cardiovascular disease and smoking-related cancer (see Why nicotine is bad for you, Cosmos Online).
Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential, but drugs known as nicotinic agonists, which target nicotine receptors in the brain, are front runners in the challenge to find an effective replacement.
Mohammed Shoaib, a psychopharmacologist from the University of Newcastle, in the north of England, commented that nicotine-based therapies would offer a significant advancement over current treatments, which do little for the cognitive problems seen with the disease.
Nice to see the anti-smoking lobby contradicting the Paki doctor right there in the middle of the article. When the researching doctor says "hey, we may have found a great new treatment based on X", maybe the government shouldn't use its mouthpieces (cosmos magazine in this case) to tell him to fuck off right in the same article.
Users have shown that they will not pay for online content unless there is an actual value-add. News sites provide nothing that can't be eventually seen on TV or read elsewhere.
Newspapers are done. Trumpeting AdBlock isn't going to help them make a cent.
I just installed Chrome (someone told me about the cool "incognito" feature which allows me to surf porn sites without leaving a trace) and think that it is interesting. The addressbar is bit large and the lack of a window frame is a bit disconcerting (but cool). What's killing me, though, is the really bad number fonts. Holy cow, it's ugly.
That said, it's no less ugly than the narcissism which is on display in the Twitter world. While blogging at least gave the impression of journalism and (not always successfully) encouraged a deeper reflection on content since the content itself was more or less permanent and long.
Twittering, on the other hand, encourages in-the-moment quipping which is much more useful for those who want to be heard but do not necessarily have anything of value to say. The "Twitter shitter" stereotype is definitely apropos.
Maybe taking this service offline for a while will free these people from themselves. I can only hope that the Iranian protesters can find their way without Twitter for a few hours.
I may have to give Chrome another chance. How does it handle porn sites with malicious javascript? I use NoScript in FF to protect against browser hijackings. Does Chrome have a problem there?
I don't like the Private Browsing Mode of Firefox that much either since I want to leave some trace that I had used the browser, I just don't want to leave certain sites in the history.
The first thing that really got me about Chrome was how well it seemed to learn my browsing habits. At least, that was my first impression when I booted it up. The first view you get in Chrome is the "most visited websites" page or something like that. As a incognito porn site surfer, I was really taken aback and worried about privacy issues.
It took a long time in Firefox to fix the URL history functionality. It used to keep the URLs in some cache so that it could be called up right away when you started entering a URL into the address bar. Now, the URLs at least seem like they are gone forever when you delete them from your History.
IE still has this problem (in addition to completely retarded address bar behavior). In fact, if you delete the entire browsing history at once, the URLs themselves can never be deleted except by completely clearing the cache, but then that also deletes the "cover" sites that I visit to make it seem like my surfing is just innocuous browsing and not the hardcore porn viewing which it ostensibly is.
So if Chrome wants my patronage, I think the first thing it needs to do is convince me that my personal privacy is safe. That my URLs aren't going to be cached and exposed at some inopportune time, and that it isn't tracking them for me to helpfully find other related websites.
In this way, I've found Firefox to be the most accommodating browser on the market today. It does what I want and doesn't try to be smart about it. Funny how so many things in life work better that way.
The friend is clearly motivated by name value alone and doesn't see the respectability of the Acura brand as coming from the car quality but rather from some undefinable je ne sais quoi that somehow Honda doesn't have.
Clearly, Honda is the Toyota of automobiles. There's nothing wrong with them and a lot right with them. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they weren't a foreign maker.
FTFA: Other than that, Windows 7 has been working great on my MacBook Pro... It looks good, too, even prettier than when it is installed on PC hardware.
This reminds me of the iPod Nano review here at Slashdot that claimed that the Nano sounded great, even in a moving convertible with the top down. (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/08/1439244)
Yes, it's the Apple magic that makes the software look better.
How can we know that the battery isn't simply returning strange battery level information to the OS that OSX knows how to parse but Windows doesn't? What a strange review.
--start-bad-analogy-- I let you watch TV at my house. But, most of the time you are there, you leave trash and shit everywhere, and fail to clean up after yourself.
So, after enough complaints from my other guests, I decide to kick your ass out. --end-bad-analogy--
Hey, fuck you. That's my shtick.
What if I was the one providing everyone a ride that night? You just fucked over all your guests, you inconsiderate asshole.
And I oppose that type of action as well. I don't think that it is the ISP's job to filter what goes on over their networks except to the extent that they may need to throttle some users who flood the pipes during peak usage hours.
The law provides means for wronged parties to seek restitution. The RIAA should definitely sue the filesharers. And if the actions on the Latvian ISP were illegal, the Latvian police should take down the criminals.
Taking down the whole ISP is collective punishment which may make us feel better in the short term, but it only reduces our personal security like any collective action does.
The Latvian ISP isn't throwing stones. It is the stone that is being thrown.
A stone can be used to break a window, crack a head, or choke someone to death. But it can also be used to create a beautiful sculpture, make stone soup, or provide perfect oscillation for your CPU.
The rock throwers are the ones misusing the ISP, not the ISP itself. I wouldn't stand for it for a second if the RIAA decided to sue Comcast out of business because my neighbor was sharing MP3s. Collective punishment is unwarranted and immoral, even if the alternative is personal damage to yourself.
No man should be held accountable for that in which he did not participate. - Thomas Jefferson
Slashdot Mirror
When you decide to skirt tax laws, you are able to directly benefit from the greater net income at the end of the day. Shareholders of companies that skirt tax laws benefit greatly because of the greater net revenues. So it seems that everyone should be happy, right? More money to the private sector and we (the private sector) know how to best spend our money.
But what about social services that are necessary to protect the least among us? Rousseau described a social contract which requires each citizen to give up some rights in order to preserve order and safety. John Rawls describes a theory of social justice which demands a safety net which can protect those who are the most unfortunate, at the cost of additional taxes on those most able to pay.
Aren't these companies who take advantage of these ethically questionable tax shelters 1) not paying their fair share to support the social safety net, and 2) putting the onus on the individual citizens/employees who cannot easily move to tax-free states?
That's already the case for many makes and models.
http://www.magna.com/magna/en/ (for example)
What game-changing idea does Tesla really bring to the table? What idea would let them survive in the competitive car market?
Their market isn't automobiles (or even sports cars), it's electric vehicles. There would need to significant financial incentives for Tesla to become a serious contender in the automobile market. Asit is, there is a little incentive to buy a greener car these days, but not enough to cover the gap in price.
No. It's pure naivete to think that Tesla will somehow continue in this business as a car manufacturer. They don't even manufacture the body of the car they sell. They are an IP company through and through. Their only hope is to have a good patent chest and find licensees.
Daimler seems to be interested, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones who want to build an electric vehicle.
Anyone who thinks Tesla will be around as a car manufacturer 3 years from now ought to buy stock in Moller today.
I'm just angered by the insinuance that somehow because someone owns something that was granted to them by the government that somehow they have a monopoly over it and the right to shut me out on a whim.
What is hopeful is how Tesla is working with the auto industry to spread their battery and electric vehicle patents in a cooperative way rather than trying to submarine them. I see a profitable road ahead for Tesla if they can keep their IP chest ahead of the curve.
Let's see what the experts say: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
(1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness
The distinctiveness is there, as explained in my original reply
(2) the duration and extent of use
Duration is there, and the intent to use has not been abandoned, as explained in my original reply
(3) the amount of advertising and publicity
Definitely arguable. They have a website and are the first hit on Google for "edge game" and "edge games".
(4) the geographic extent of the market
US and UK, according the the Edge Games website.
(5) the channels of trade
They are a game company and seem intent on releasing their existing portfolio to the Wii.
(6) the degree of recognition in trading areas
Edge Games was a decently sized name back in the C64 days. Nowadays they are a bit infamous for stiffing their developers, but is infamy different from fame?
(7) any use of similar marks by third parties
I suppose Gillette probably has a trademark on Edge for their shaving gel.
(8) whether the mark is registered
Seems like it.
Langdell's Edge trademark seems to fit the requirements of fame.
The naming of the game certainly seems to dilute the trademark. Can the publishers of Edge (the game) claim that the name is sufficiently generic enough?
At the most, though, Langdell would only be able to get injunctive relief as it is unlikely that the infringers willfully traded on the plaintiff's goodwill in using the mark.
I'm not sure you're familiar with trademark law in the United States either. Your definition of "use" is unclear and its applicability in this case is questionable.
Let's see what the experts say: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
So the trademark "Edge" in reference to games is, given the history of the company, inherently distinctive and thus fulfills the requirements for being a trademark.
Again, Langdell seems to have this base covered so far as anyone can prove.
Here we get to the crux of your post.
But if you take a look, Edge Games has a website, claims to be developing games, and is in no way abandoning its trademark to genericity. So while your claim that Edge Games hasn't released something for years may be true, it may not be relevant.
If obscurity were the measure by which a trademark claim could be defended, there are many companies (many of them English!) that would be unable to protect their trademark.
Langdell's company makes games. A quick browsing of Wikipedia shows that "lol ura fagit" and that Edge Games is currently in development to bring their C64 games to the Wii.
So, being the trademark holder, Langdell actually needs to do what he can to protect it or risk losing it. This isn't being a troll, it's looking out for one's own best interest. His trademark is old, on the order of decades. Why would he relinquish it now to some upstart?
Probably not. I'm sure he said "black hole".
I saw you wrote this:
Your definition seems to mean "complete" or something along those lines. However in actual industry usage, robustness is a measure of software quality as tested. You may be providing a lot of configuration options, help files, and several additional files (what does this mean?), but are you providing well-tested, exception-proof code?
What is your test matrix like? What is the MTTF among your users? How many users are actually using it?
The patch you provide can be the most beautiful set of files ever created, but if the maintainer needs to fix all the bugs you created because you didn't test anything except the most obvious cases, then you aren't helping.
Something to keep in mind as you graduate from university programming to actual industry programming.
Sometimes OSS is a lot like butch lesbians. Take your question, for example:
Has anyone else submitted extensions to what seems to be a black hole?
Yes, sometimes a strap-on is precisely what is needed to fill a black hole.
But I digress.
What is the specific project you're fixing up? Is it fairly frequently updated by the maintainer?
That is really the point I think you need to figure out. If the maintainer has disappeared and does not update the package, then there's really no point in involving that person at all. He isn't the maintainer; you are. The only problem is, as you pointed out, if the package is updated and your patches aren't included, you'll need to provide patch updates to any of your users.
However, that said, what is more important to you? This package or your time? You don't work for the project, you work for your employers. Release this patch to whomever you like and give them the source. There's no reason you need to kill yourself trying to keep it updated if it works great for you now on the project version you targeted.
Why curious? The entire anti-nicotine/anti-smoking section has almost nothing to do with the research in the article. It's a message deliberately inserted to discourage tobacco/nicotine use.
Maybe you missed the highlighted portions again. I quoted a lot of text, so maybe you didn't see the bolded and italicized text.
This is clearly not the doctor's words:
Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential
This is what the doctor said:
Mohammed Shoaib, a psychopharmacologist from the University of Newcastle, in the north of England, commented that nicotine-based therapies would offer a significant advancement over current treatments
The doctor said that nicotine treatment "would offer significant advancement over current treatments". The government mouthpiece at Cosmos contradicts this by saying "nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment".
That's where all this universal healthcare talk becomes scary. No pro-nicotine article can pass without the preemptive mentioning that nicotine and smoking are bad for you. Goodbye freedom of the press.
FTFA:
Nice to see the anti-smoking lobby contradicting the Paki doctor right there in the middle of the article. When the researching doctor says "hey, we may have found a great new treatment based on X", maybe the government shouldn't use its mouthpieces (cosmos magazine in this case) to tell him to fuck off right in the same article.
The DC CityPaper is outstanding, as is the Seattle Stranger. Both free.
Users have shown that they will not pay for online content unless there is an actual value-add. News sites provide nothing that can't be eventually seen on TV or read elsewhere.
Newspapers are done. Trumpeting AdBlock isn't going to help them make a cent.
I just installed Chrome (someone told me about the cool "incognito" feature which allows me to surf porn sites without leaving a trace) and think that it is interesting. The addressbar is bit large and the lack of a window frame is a bit disconcerting (but cool). What's killing me, though, is the really bad number fonts. Holy cow, it's ugly.
That said, it's no less ugly than the narcissism which is on display in the Twitter world. While blogging at least gave the impression of journalism and (not always successfully) encouraged a deeper reflection on content since the content itself was more or less permanent and long.
Twittering, on the other hand, encourages in-the-moment quipping which is much more useful for those who want to be heard but do not necessarily have anything of value to say. The "Twitter shitter" stereotype is definitely apropos.
Maybe taking this service offline for a while will free these people from themselves. I can only hope that the Iranian protesters can find their way without Twitter for a few hours.
That is actually very interesting and compelling.
I may have to give Chrome another chance. How does it handle porn sites with malicious javascript? I use NoScript in FF to protect against browser hijackings. Does Chrome have a problem there?
I don't like the Private Browsing Mode of Firefox that much either since I want to leave some trace that I had used the browser, I just don't want to leave certain sites in the history.
also... s/ostensibly/invariably/;
The first thing that really got me about Chrome was how well it seemed to learn my browsing habits. At least, that was my first impression when I booted it up. The first view you get in Chrome is the "most visited websites" page or something like that. As a incognito porn site surfer, I was really taken aback and worried about privacy issues.
It took a long time in Firefox to fix the URL history functionality. It used to keep the URLs in some cache so that it could be called up right away when you started entering a URL into the address bar. Now, the URLs at least seem like they are gone forever when you delete them from your History.
IE still has this problem (in addition to completely retarded address bar behavior). In fact, if you delete the entire browsing history at once, the URLs themselves can never be deleted except by completely clearing the cache, but then that also deletes the "cover" sites that I visit to make it seem like my surfing is just innocuous browsing and not the hardcore porn viewing which it ostensibly is.
So if Chrome wants my patronage, I think the first thing it needs to do is convince me that my personal privacy is safe. That my URLs aren't going to be cached and exposed at some inopportune time, and that it isn't tracking them for me to helpfully find other related websites.
In this way, I've found Firefox to be the most accommodating browser on the market today. It does what I want and doesn't try to be smart about it. Funny how so many things in life work better that way.
The friend is clearly motivated by name value alone and doesn't see the respectability of the Acura brand as coming from the car quality but rather from some undefinable je ne sais quoi that somehow Honda doesn't have.
Clearly, Honda is the Toyota of automobiles. There's nothing wrong with them and a lot right with them. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they weren't a foreign maker.
FTFA: Other than that, Windows 7 has been working great on my MacBook Pro... It looks good, too, even prettier than when it is installed on PC hardware.
This reminds me of the iPod Nano review here at Slashdot that claimed that the Nano sounded great, even in a moving convertible with the top down. (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/08/1439244)
Yes, it's the Apple magic that makes the software look better.
How can we know that the battery isn't simply returning strange battery level information to the OS that OSX knows how to parse but Windows doesn't? What a strange review.
You seen this server 216.34.181.48?
It's like a neverending stream of crap.
--start-bad-analogy--
I let you watch TV at my house. But, most of the time you are there, you leave trash and shit everywhere, and fail to clean up after yourself.
So, after enough complaints from my other guests, I decide to kick your ass out.
--end-bad-analogy--
Hey, fuck you. That's my shtick.
What if I was the one providing everyone a ride that night? You just fucked over all your guests, you inconsiderate asshole.
And I oppose that type of action as well. I don't think that it is the ISP's job to filter what goes on over their networks except to the extent that they may need to throttle some users who flood the pipes during peak usage hours.
The law provides means for wronged parties to seek restitution. The RIAA should definitely sue the filesharers. And if the actions on the Latvian ISP were illegal, the Latvian police should take down the criminals.
Taking down the whole ISP is collective punishment which may make us feel better in the short term, but it only reduces our personal security like any collective action does.
The Latvian ISP isn't throwing stones. It is the stone that is being thrown.
A stone can be used to break a window, crack a head, or choke someone to death. But it can also be used to create a beautiful sculpture, make stone soup, or provide perfect oscillation for your CPU.
The rock throwers are the ones misusing the ISP, not the ISP itself. I wouldn't stand for it for a second if the RIAA decided to sue Comcast out of business because my neighbor was sharing MP3s. Collective punishment is unwarranted and immoral, even if the alternative is personal damage to yourself.
No man should be held accountable for that in which he did not participate. - Thomas Jefferson