I'm not convinced that I owe you an apology. I'll give you another opportunity to tell me what I did to you to owe you an apology. Would you be happy with a generic, superficial apology, knowing full well that I couldn't have possibly meant it since I don't even know what I'd be apologizing for?
When you share a folder on a p2p network, your computer advertises the availability of that share. Otherwise, how could you possibly share anything? Call it what you will, but at some point, peers need to know how to find you and your shared content. To my untrained ear, that sounds an awful lot like advertising.
Look, I am not a lawyer, and do not represent the interests of the RIAA. I don't even like the RIAA.
But I do like to call a spade a spade. Am I wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong. I'll listen.
All you have done is claim that I sound like an RIAA lawyer and demand some type of apology. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that I have been nothing but courteous to you, yet you have been rude to me.
If my ego were any bigger, I'd probably be demanding an apology from you.
I neither a lawyer, nor an apologist for the RIAA. I merely call them like I see them.
To a layperson, it sure sounds to me like if I open up a shared folder or other resource, place copyrighted works in it (and I do not own the copyright), and then advertise this resource, that that would meet the requirements for a distribution.
Is it a distribution to the public? Yes. Of phonorecords or copies? Of copies. For sale, transfer of ownership, lease, rental, or lending? I dunno. Lending, I guess?
Look, all I was doing was asking a question. You don't have to jump all over me. If you feel that I owe you an apology for something, and you'd like to tell me what for, I'd be happy to apologize to you (assuming there is something reasonable to apologize for). I did not mean to offend you with my question.
If you've already answered this question, I wouldn't ask you to repeat yourself. I'd be happy to read your explanation elsewhere, if you tell me where you have explained it.
At any rate, I would think that you would welcome such a question outside of a courtroom. Better to react like that in front of me than to blow up at a judge, no?
Why do you think the decision negates the first possibility?
As I understand it, you asked if merely having a shared folder on the internet would be copyright infringement, and the judge said "no".
But as I understand the "first possibility", he asked if merely having a shred folder on the internet that contains copyrighted works would be infringement. In this case, how can you argue that distribution of copyrighted works via a shared folder on the internet is somehow not distribution of copyrighted works?
I Am A Landlord, and I have not called a locksmith in years. The two most common reasons for a Landlord to call a locksmith: changing the locks when changing tenants, and breaking in for an eviction if the tenant has changed the locks.
Changing the locks: I use a master/control-keyed system with exchangeable cylinders. I have my choice of changing the locks by playing "musical cylinders", or I can send cylinders to be rekeyed for $3.00 including the keys. What would you charge me for that service?
Tenant has locked me out: I just break a window. Costs $15 to repair. How much would you charge me to let me in?
Someday, all locks will be electronic, too. I wonder what locksmiths will do then?
I have created a family blog, and the blog entry page contains the following instructions:
Friendly Reminder: "Would it be ok if this were published on the front page of the New York Times, taken completely out of context, along with your name and address?"
If it was recently enough, and you're willing to do a little research on the laws of your state, you might be able to recover some or all of that amount. Someday.
Do some research, if you're interested. Things that you should be looking for are:
Recording the judgment- This, depending on your state, may place an automatic lien on any property he owns or purchases in the state. It will also likely show up on his credit report, which means he ain't getting a secured loan (mortgage or auto loan) until he pays up.
Garnish his wages- If he's making money, you can probably garnish his wages. His employer will pay you a little bit each pay period until the debt is satisfied.
Charge interest- Most stages allow you to charge interest on the debt. Each year, forgive the interest on the debt and give your Hispanic friend a 1099 (and don't forget to send that 1099 to the IRS as well). He'll have to pay taxes on that "income" every time you do it. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
By now, you've probably guessed that I Am A Landlord. We have many more tricks up our sleeves to chase down deadbeats and make them pay, but this ought to get you started.
I think you greatly overestimate the amount of effort that goes into maintaining an S corp or a single member LLC. Also, of course the corporation is under your full control. Who else's control would it be under?
As a user of IT services, I have to say that I have absolutely no problem with a policy like that. Makes life easier for everybody. If my PC ever gets hosed, whether or not it's my fault, I just want it up and running ASAP. Reimaging it doesn't take much of your time or mine.
Try this one: "All those cutsey cursors and taskbar bugs are giving your computer extra work to do. That will make your computer slow and irritate you."
Are you trying to tell me that she can't afford the $60/yr to have a real, incorporated business, but she's just chomping at the bit to shell out $1300.00 per year just to be "green"?
I have a small business, legally registered, which is a sole proprietorship. Even though my business is legal and even though I'm personally legally responsible for the business I cannot get this green bar.
I'm not impressed. Did you even look at how much these certs cost? They cost $1300.00 per year.
If you are so eager to pay $1300/yr for an SSL cert, certainly you can handle the $60/yr to have a real, incorporated business.
I doubt she'll be hurt. I own 3 small businesses. Most of my friends also own businesses. I don't know anybody who is rushing out to pay for one of these "make yourself green" certificates. Hell, I hear people grousing all the time about how much ordinary, no-human-intervention-required SSL certs cost. In small business, every dollar counts (why do you think Auntie Treestocking isn't even incorporated? Because that costs money), and did you look at how much these EV certs cost?
They cost $1299.00 per year. How much profit do you really think Pippy Longstocking is making from her little business? Look at her site. She does sales through via phone, a shared-SSL ecommerce package, and an eBay store. In other words, she didn't even spring for her own $20 SSL cert. Do you really think she's going to drop $1300 just so she can be "green"? Why not just direct all visitors to her eBay store? You know that they're going to be green.
Seriously, I don't think many small businesses are going to be hurt by this.
Oh my how times have changed. My family has a Beagle. They are great family dogs--love to play outside, very gentle with kids, smart, yet trainable, and don't tear the house to shreds. Believe me, we all love our blessed Beagle. But here is how the typical hunt goes with her:
Me (having dropped some foodstuffs on the floor): Oops. Beagle: That's my cue! Into the kitchen I run! Me: Good dog. Clean up the mess. Beagle (jumping around madly): I'm so excited! I'm so excited! People food! People food! Me: Dog, please just clean up the floor. Beagle (now jumping up and down on just her hind legs): So excited! Where's the food? Where's the food? Me (pointing to the food): It's right here, genius. Right here. Clean the floor like a good dog. Beagle (sniffing madly all over the floor, totally passing up the food): Where's the food? Where's the food? So excited! Me: It's right here, you moron. Here! Eat the food. It's right here! Beagle (still running wildly all around the room sniffing): Where's the food? I love people food. So excited! Me: Idiot! What the hell is the matter with you? The food is right here. Right here! Please just eat it, for the love of god! Beagle: Oh, there it is. Let me just wolf this down now. Me: Worst. Beagle. Ever.
I think something's happened to Beagles over the years. Now if they could only evolve away that obnoxious noise that they make.
Nice rant, but MySQL supports foreign key constraints and triggers (and several other "niceties" like advanced clustering, partitioning, and XA transactions, which PostgreSQL couldn't be bothered to implement). It also has the added bonus of not hosing 100% of your data if you forget to vacuum.
If notepad meets your needs, then great. Personally, it doesn't meet mine.
Same goes for MySQL vs. Postgresql. The environment that I'm working in right now needs partitioning, advanced clustering, and XA transactions, so Postgresql doesn't meet our needs. Postgres is actually more difficult to configure, too.
I guess I didn't have a point, then. The more feature-rich database is also easier to administer. Who knew?
I love how the Arab-Israeli conflict warrants 3 lines on your list, and ranks higher than the Darfur Conflict, which has resulted in 400,000 deaths since 2003 (and millions of people displaced).
So let me get this straight. Israelis accidentally kill a few hundred Arabs while trying to fight against those who are blowing up their country and that is a huge tragedy. But when thousands of Arabs kill hundreds of thousands of black people, that's somehow not as big a deal.
Well, let me give you a hint: it is a big deal. It's a huge deal. Black people are people too, even though they may not look like you. What's going on in the Arab-Israeli conflict is peanuts by comparison. What's going on in Sudan is all-out genocide. Definitely more than a footnote.
I think you've touched on the real reason for these laws. As CG technology becomes more advanced and accessible to the masses, you probably will start seeing very realistic CG pornography (and possibly porn involving CG "minors").
Laws like this aren't an attempt to protect 1's and 0's that are less than 18 years of age. Rather, these types of laws are for prosecutional prudence. Imagine you are a prosecutor. You've got a guy who was found in possession of a child porn video. Currently, that ought to be a pretty easy case to convict on.
But what happens in the future when the defense says, "The child in this video isn't a person. He's a computer animation." Now, all of a sudden, the prosecution has to track down the child to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was, indeed, a child in the video who was under 18 years of age. Laws like this are an end-run around such a defense. It takes away the prosecution's obligation to produce a victim or lose the case.
Personally, I rather like the idea that a prosecutor has to produce a victim in order to prosecute someone. But I don't write the laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I never claimed to be a lawyer.
I'm not convinced that I owe you an apology. I'll give you another opportunity to tell me what I did to you to owe you an apology. Would you be happy with a generic, superficial apology, knowing full well that I couldn't have possibly meant it since I don't even know what I'd be apologizing for?
When you share a folder on a p2p network, your computer advertises the availability of that share. Otherwise, how could you possibly share anything? Call it what you will, but at some point, peers need to know how to find you and your shared content. To my untrained ear, that sounds an awful lot like advertising.
Look, I am not a lawyer, and do not represent the interests of the RIAA. I don't even like the RIAA.
But I do like to call a spade a spade. Am I wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong. I'll listen.
All you have done is claim that I sound like an RIAA lawyer and demand some type of apology. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that I have been nothing but courteous to you, yet you have been rude to me.
If my ego were any bigger, I'd probably be demanding an apology from you.
I neither a lawyer, nor an apologist for the RIAA. I merely call them like I see them.
To a layperson, it sure sounds to me like if I open up a shared folder or other resource, place copyrighted works in it (and I do not own the copyright), and then advertise this resource, that that would meet the requirements for a distribution.
Is it a distribution to the public? Yes.
Of phonorecords or copies? Of copies.
For sale, transfer of ownership, lease, rental, or lending? I dunno. Lending, I guess?
Look, all I was doing was asking a question. You don't have to jump all over me. If you feel that I owe you an apology for something, and you'd like to tell me what for, I'd be happy to apologize to you (assuming there is something reasonable to apologize for). I did not mean to offend you with my question.
If you've already answered this question, I wouldn't ask you to repeat yourself. I'd be happy to read your explanation elsewhere, if you tell me where you have explained it.
At any rate, I would think that you would welcome such a question outside of a courtroom. Better to react like that in front of me than to blow up at a judge, no?
Why do you think the decision negates the first possibility?
As I understand it, you asked if merely having a shared folder on the internet would be copyright infringement, and the judge said "no".
But as I understand the "first possibility", he asked if merely having a shred folder on the internet that contains copyrighted works would be infringement. In this case, how can you argue that distribution of copyrighted works via a shared folder on the internet is somehow not distribution of copyrighted works?
If some thing is in an area that you control, it is assumed that you are the owner of that thing.
Of course, if you can demonstrate that you are not the owner of that computer/marijuana/whatever, then more power to you.
The 48,000 Yen was probably a minimum repair cost. They just needed to make sure your watch wasn't broken to the point of costing more.
In your answer, please include the words "past performance is no guarantee of future results".
- Changing the locks: I use a master/control-keyed system with exchangeable cylinders. I have my choice of changing the locks by playing "musical cylinders", or I can send cylinders to be rekeyed for $3.00 including the keys. What would you charge me for that service?
- Tenant has locked me out: I just break a window. Costs $15 to repair. How much would you charge me to let me in?
Someday, all locks will be electronic, too. I wonder what locksmiths will do then?In fact, you can read more about the subject here.
Queue all Japanese Tentacle Porn jokes in 3... 2... 1...
Do some research, if you're interested. Things that you should be looking for are:
- Recording the judgment-
- Garnish his wages-
- Charge interest-
By now, you've probably guessed that I Am A Landlord. We have many more tricks up our sleeves to chase down deadbeats and make them pay, but this ought to get you started.This, depending on your state, may place an automatic lien on any property he owns or purchases in the state. It will also likely show up on his credit report, which means he ain't getting a secured loan (mortgage or auto loan) until he pays up.
If he's making money, you can probably garnish his wages. His employer will pay you a little bit each pay period until the debt is satisfied.
Most stages allow you to charge interest on the debt. Each year, forgive the interest on the debt and give your Hispanic friend a 1099 (and don't forget to send that 1099 to the IRS as well). He'll have to pay taxes on that "income" every time you do it. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Merry Christmas!
I think you greatly overestimate the amount of effort that goes into maintaining an S corp or a single member LLC. Also, of course the corporation is under your full control. Who else's control would it be under?
As a user of IT services, I have to say that I have absolutely no problem with a policy like that. Makes life easier for everybody. If my PC ever gets hosed, whether or not it's my fault, I just want it up and running ASAP. Reimaging it doesn't take much of your time or mine.
Try this one: "All those cutsey cursors and taskbar bugs are giving your computer extra work to do. That will make your computer slow and irritate you."
Everyone hates a slow computer.
Unless you commit fraud or don't maintain adequate insurance.
Incorporating is not a license to screw people with immunity.
Are you trying to tell me that she can't afford the $60/yr to have a real, incorporated business, but she's just chomping at the bit to shell out $1300.00 per year just to be "green"?
Yeah, whatever.
I'm not impressed. Did you even look at how much these certs cost? They cost $1300.00 per year.
If you are so eager to pay $1300/yr for an SSL cert, certainly you can handle the $60/yr to have a real, incorporated business.
I doubt she'll be hurt. I own 3 small businesses. Most of my friends also own businesses. I don't know anybody who is rushing out to pay for one of these "make yourself green" certificates. Hell, I hear people grousing all the time about how much ordinary, no-human-intervention-required SSL certs cost. In small business, every dollar counts (why do you think Auntie Treestocking isn't even incorporated? Because that costs money), and did you look at how much these EV certs cost?
They cost $1299.00 per year. How much profit do you really think Pippy Longstocking is making from her little business? Look at her site. She does sales through via phone, a shared-SSL ecommerce package, and an eBay store. In other words, she didn't even spring for her own $20 SSL cert. Do you really think she's going to drop $1300 just so she can be "green"? Why not just direct all visitors to her eBay store? You know that they're going to be green.
Seriously, I don't think many small businesses are going to be hurt by this.
I think something's happened to Beagles over the years. Now if they could only evolve away that obnoxious noise that they make.
That's because any sentence that includes the words "ruby interpreter" and "performance" by law must also include the words "dog slow".
Maybe that's why it's called "Mongrel".
Nice rant, but MySQL supports foreign key constraints and triggers (and several other "niceties" like advanced clustering, partitioning, and XA transactions, which PostgreSQL couldn't be bothered to implement). It also has the added bonus of not hosing 100% of your data if you forget to vacuum.
What was your rant about, again?
If notepad meets your needs, then great. Personally, it doesn't meet mine.
Same goes for MySQL vs. Postgresql. The environment that I'm working in right now needs partitioning, advanced clustering, and XA transactions, so Postgresql doesn't meet our needs. Postgres is actually more difficult to configure, too.
I guess I didn't have a point, then. The more feature-rich database is also easier to administer. Who knew?
In addition to the points you mentioned, Postgres will also have to support XA transactions if it is ever going to catch up to MySQL.
Oh well, maybe someday.
I love how the Arab-Israeli conflict warrants 3 lines on your list, and ranks higher than the Darfur Conflict, which has resulted in 400,000 deaths since 2003 (and millions of people displaced).
So let me get this straight. Israelis accidentally kill a few hundred Arabs while trying to fight against those who are blowing up their country and that is a huge tragedy. But when thousands of Arabs kill hundreds of thousands of black people, that's somehow not as big a deal.
Well, let me give you a hint: it is a big deal. It's a huge deal. Black people are people too, even though they may not look like you. What's going on in the Arab-Israeli conflict is peanuts by comparison. What's going on in Sudan is all-out genocide. Definitely more than a footnote.
I think you've touched on the real reason for these laws. As CG technology becomes more advanced and accessible to the masses, you probably will start seeing very realistic CG pornography (and possibly porn involving CG "minors").
Laws like this aren't an attempt to protect 1's and 0's that are less than 18 years of age. Rather, these types of laws are for prosecutional prudence. Imagine you are a prosecutor. You've got a guy who was found in possession of a child porn video. Currently, that ought to be a pretty easy case to convict on.
But what happens in the future when the defense says, "The child in this video isn't a person. He's a computer animation." Now, all of a sudden, the prosecution has to track down the child to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was, indeed, a child in the video who was under 18 years of age. Laws like this are an end-run around such a defense. It takes away the prosecution's obligation to produce a victim or lose the case.
Personally, I rather like the idea that a prosecutor has to produce a victim in order to prosecute someone. But I don't write the laws.