The RIAA seem to have morality, justice, fairness (not that there's much difference between them), reason, and the law on their side. Y'know, they risk their bucks on artists, they reap a portion of the rewards.
We're not talking about ASCAP here. High-profile recording labels don't just take a small cut. Musicians pretty much only get a good percentage from performances. Signing with a major label is basically a deal with the devil: sign your soul away, and we'll make you rich famous. If they didn't offer that, nobody would sign.
Take a look at the outcry from the record labels when Prince released some of his music for free. There's no serious externalities there -- the recording industry is not a party to this. Even so, they feel deprived enough to make a lot of noise about it.
It also should be stated that abolishing copyrights, or forcing copyright law to be unenforceable is NOT progress, rather the opposite.
You're coming dangerously close to strawman here. The "abolish copyright" crowd is not a large percentage of the population, or even of slashdotters. On the whole,/. wants shorter copyright terms and some fair use rights.
If you refuse the test you are denying them evidence to use against you in a criminal proceeding. You will have to deal with the civil punishment from DMV (typically a suspended license for a period of time and some civil $$$ penalties) but you are denying the state evidence to use against you at a criminal proceeding.
Unless, of course, the state makes it a crime to refuse the test after giving the "implied consent."
In response to closures like that, I've heard of cities adding a stipulation that says the company has to pay fees, back taxes, etc. if they close up and move out.
You are being tacked as a number and that number is rairly connected to you personally.
Nope, just to my shipping info... but that includes my name. Then that info is available to anyone willing to pay for it. And then the credit card company sees where all my payments go and can sell that data.
Seriously, if you want anonymity, buy stuff at a brick-and-mortar store, and pay cash. The whole town doesn't know your spending habits. There's just some guy at xyz who knows that tall skinny guy with graying hair bought a lot of cereal half an hour ago. Of course, the chance that he cares enough to remember the purchase half an hour later is slim.
And empower additional parties. "Everybody's second choice" would probably have trouble making it to a run-off, but would have a good chance at almost universal approval.
Well, so far it seems that nobody here has seen this done before and thinks it's a pretty neat idea. So, no, you just need to get the latest groupthink patch.
Either the formula is a trade secret, and you are free to reverse engineer it, or the formula is patented, and there should be no need to reverse engineer it.
And I can even go so far as to say I agree with him on his lack of specifics. There's no need to censor recipes, but there's no need to publicize them.
We're not talking about listing ways that work. We're talking about demonstrating that they don't work.
I also noted that Northwest (who I refuse to fly because of their absolutely shitty customer service, horrible track record, and awful unionized staff) had major issues this weekend.
Pilots can only work a certain number of hours per month (I forget if this is an FAA rule or just part of their collective contract). Since Northwest's scheduling is so screwy, pilots end up spending extra hours on the job because of delays. Since Northwest is stingy about hiring pilots, they end up using up all of their available pilot-hours before the end of the month. Then they have to cancel a lot of flights because they can't legally run them.
One of the biggest flaws of text-only communication is that it doesn't include the "side-channel" of body language. A sentence sent as an instant message or email might fit well with many different tones of voice or facial expressions, and that can affect both the meaning and the likely reaction to it.
Yes, yes, I know, this is from from wikipedia, but...
Free speech zones are created by the Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.
It's about insulating politicians from dissent. It's from the same party that wants a woman seeking an abortion to have to look at ultrasound pictures of the fetus. Of course, there was also this really ugly free-speech zone at the Democratic National Convention.
And please, can we quit calling them "computer security researchers"? What's wrong with hackers? When did we start on the euphemism treadmill?
When the media decided that a "hacker" is someone who secretly breaks into your computer and fills it full of spam and child porn. So we needed a word for people who break into computers without being secretive about it and don't fill it with bad stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not like any copyright holders are trying to prohibit any copying they don't explicitly authorize....
Limited term? Strictly speaking, yes, but that doesn't really matter much when the works won't be in the public domain for another 50-100 years.
Sometimes I have to wonder just how little would actually be produced in that situation.
Take a look at the outcry from the record labels when Prince released some of his music for free. There's no serious externalities there -- the recording industry is not a party to this. Even so, they feel deprived enough to make a lot of noise about it.
You're coming dangerously close to strawman here. The "abolish copyright" crowd is not a large percentage of the population, or even of slashdotters. On the whole,
Now, when was the last time you found someone who couldn't do but could teach?
Yeah, it's not like poeple die in DUI crashes in real life. That just happens in made-for-tv movies!
In response to closures like that, I've heard of cities adding a stipulation that says the company has to pay fees, back taxes, etc. if they close up and move out.
Seriously, if you want anonymity, buy stuff at a brick-and-mortar store, and pay cash. The whole town doesn't know your spending habits. There's just some guy at xyz who knows that tall skinny guy with graying hair bought a lot of cereal half an hour ago. Of course, the chance that he cares enough to remember the purchase half an hour later is slim.
You mean these?
And empower additional parties. "Everybody's second choice" would probably have trouble making it to a run-off, but would have a good chance at almost universal approval.
Well, so far it seems that nobody here has seen this done before and thinks it's a pretty neat idea. So, no, you just need to get the latest groupthink patch.
So... serious question here...
What would/could SoundExchange sue for? Copyright infringement?
OTOH, collecting royalties is also the purpose of ASCAP.
The difference is that the bed-ridden former nerd won't be trying to regulate the farm industry despite never having seen a farm.
Either the formula is a trade secret, and you are free to reverse engineer it, or the formula is patented, and there should be no need to reverse engineer it.
Yes, but we're talking about video games. Isn't he a movie critic?
One of the biggest flaws of text-only communication is that it doesn't include the "side-channel" of body language. A sentence sent as an instant message or email might fit well with many different tones of voice or facial expressions, and that can affect both the meaning and the likely reaction to it.
It's about insulating politicians from dissent. It's from the same party that wants a woman seeking an abortion to have to look at ultrasound pictures of the fetus. Of course, there was also this really ugly free-speech zone at the Democratic National Convention.