Are you telling me that the RIAA is going to do this "teaching" at colleges? Didn't they suggest to a student to drop out so that she could pay the (BS) fine that they charged her with? ... classic.
If the RIAA has its way, we won't have any students left in universities. You know... since all college-age kids are thieves who whine about not being able download things for free without paying for them. And they should all go to jail and/or be shot. Right, Real world Rick? Right buddy? Eh? You're with me on this, right?
Look people, big-brother has a database and is not afraid to use it... and that's new to you? Dalane said it best (when he finally got the post to work ;) ): You think this is the first database the government has? And do you think that the government is the only entity that has you on a database?
When the whole Homeland Security thing was starting up, the US government went to Microsoft to ask about setting up a large database. After giving MS the parameters that they wanted the DB to cover, MS told them "go talk to State Farm".
I'm not kidding.
State Farm has the largest and most complex and comprehensive marketing database in the US. My point is that your information is already in databases. This is just one more for the list. Yeah, it's probably a bit more high-profile, but denying the FBI their database is just going to remove one pebble from the pond.
Now... all of that said, I don't agree with anyone I don't know and/or trust having my information. Be it government or corporation. And guess how much I trust either.
The Franklin quote appears in many variations, my favorite is
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
And it's true. Franklin would have wept if he saw the Homeland Security initiated in his time.
Go read "1984", or watch "V for Vendetta" if you want to see where this kind of thing could lead. I won't say that it will, but it's a lot more possible than most people would like to admit.
Sorry this post kinda rambled from one point to another. Kinda in a rush at the moment. :(
Let's see here... we have a technology which some would see as promising, but few see as actually working, or even capable of working.
I'm laying odds that not too long from now, a US company will try this, make it actually work... then get sued by another company who "had the idea before" and claims to have actually patented it.
This story just couldn't end without a patent suit getting started.
OH... And I know that responding to Potato Fucker over there just eggs him on, but oh well. As someone said earlier... Die. Soon. Please.
"I don't like pedophilia. Is it OK with you if we continue to ban it?"
-Anonymous Coward
Actually, yes it's fine to keep banning it. Not just because it's bad, but because it's illegal. It is not illegal to express hate.
Also, hate speech doesn't harm anyone... well, aside from making them feel uncomfortable. Pedophilia is damaging to the child and is an example of one person's actions directly inflicting harm on another, who is incapable of defending themselves.
The example of the driver swerving to avoid the horse is a matter of Provable Negligence versus Common Sense.
I've talked about negligence before, but since it's part of my profession, I don't mind educating about it.
Here's the deal. For someone to be considered negligent, four things must be met.
1) There has to be a "reasonable" and "prudent" duty to perform (to do or not do something)
2) There has to be a breach of that duty (failing to do or failing to not do something)
3) There has to be observable and quantifiable damages
4) There has to be proximate cause (an unbroken chain of events linking the failed duty to the damages caused).
Now, anyone with one iota of common sense would say that the farm hand failed in his duties to secure the horse. Common sense would tell you that it's highly likely that the failure to lock the horse up is what caused the accident.
Unfortunately, it's not about common sense. So, let's put the actions of the two parties through our little 4-step machine.
Farm Hand:
1) Duty to perform: make sure the animals under his care do not become a hazard for other citizens. This still resides in the realm of "reasonable" and "prudent", so the hand isn't responsible for taking "extraordinary" measures to do this.
2) Breach of Duty: obvious. He wasn't watching the horse.
3) Observable, quantifiable damages: Very obvious. A person died. Not to mention damage to the car.
4) Proximate Cause: here's where it would be difficult to prove negligence. There's very little evidence that says that a person died directly as a result of the farm hand's failure to lock the horse up. There are a million other possibilities on how the horse could have/would have gotten out. There are also a million other things that horse may or may not have done once it was out. Remember, when the law is applied to a death, reasonable doubt always has to be dispelled. It's pretty easy to see that there's a reasonable doubt that the horse killed someone as a result of the farm hand's failure to lock it up.
The Driver:
1) Duty to perform: operate the motor vehicle in a safe capacity. This, of course, still falls under the words "reasonable" and "prudent". You don't have to be on the lookout for falling meteors while you're driving. It's pretty reasonable that you shouldn't have to dodge those with any frequency. But, it could be argued that when driving near farms, one should drive with increased alertness and perhaps reduced speed. It's reasonable to assume that animals may be loose.
2) Failure to act: This is where it would be difficult to prove the driver failed to do or to not do something. The prosecution would have to show that the actions taken by the driver were not adequate when compared to a "reasonable and prudent person". Again, it's up to the judge/jury to decide if he should have driven with more care past the farms, then failed to do so.
3) Damages: same as above.
4) Proximate cause: directly due to the driver's actions, the passenger died. Pretty cut and dried there.
You could argue that the passenger died as the result of the driver's inability to control his vehicle after a sudden swerve, and that falls outside of his "reasonable and prudent" duties. You don't have to be a professional stunt driver to drive safely. I'm sure his defense tried this or something similar. It sounds like the prosecution went down the path of least resistance. It's easier to show the driver failed to act that it is to show proximate cause of the ranch hand.
Now... I know people are going to disagree with my view on this. That's fine. All I ask is that when you argue against it, make sure you're not arguing from the viewpoint of common sense. CS does not apply in the law. Saying it is "common sense that the horse got out and a person died" is making assumptions, and you cannot do that in a case as serious as one that involves the death of a person.
Now... you can apply the same 4-step proof to the actions of the two girls to find out which one (if either... there's doesn't always have to be someone at-fault here. They call them "accidents" for a reason) was negligent. If the friend is negligent, then it is up to her (or her parents, since she's a minor) to indemnify the injured party.
You know, Dorpus, I was waiting for the unfounded attack on Americans. I just didn't think it would be quite so completely off-topic. Where did you even get your start on this being a matter of open debate? And where did you even get that this was an American issue? Did you read the first sentence? "...coming out of Canada..."
And what are you talking about with the cultural roots? What does that have to do with debate?
1) there are many cultures that used debate to solve problems... no more or less successfully than those cultures that used other methods.
2) Where do you get the idea that Americans lack strong cultural roots? That's an unnecessary generalization on your part. I can go anywhere within 5 miles of my house and get you at least a couple of example of "proud ethnics" from a wide array of different cultures.
Maybe the friend borrowed it over the weekend and was returning it on a monday or something. The article doesn't really say that the owner brought it to school and lent it to the friend at school.
Not a big deal, but people were focusing on that a bit too much, IMHO.
"now the ipod thing.....the litigation is stupid....it is a waste of time.....our courts have much more to take care of.....like actually prosecuting that bitch that drowned her children in the bathtub, said god told her to do it, and was given insanity...... "
-derfaust
You're still missing the point. These are two different court systems. The one handling the $300 piece of property is Small Claims Court. The one handling the murder trial is a Criminal Court.
The i-Pod case is not detracting from a murder trial here. That's like saying that the animal show on the Discovery Channel is taking away air time from the music videos on MTV (they still show music there, right?)
Now, let me deviate off-topic for a moment. Drop the bible-bashing. 1) This isn't the place for it, and 2) Arun's use of the Exodus quote was a proper use and in-context. Whatever your opinion is on whether the bible is fact or fiction, the purpose of the bible is to give parables... example stories on how to live a better life. Similar to Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac". The actual teachings of the bible (old and new) do illustrate a fair, peaceful, and happy lifestyle. Unfortunately, many practitioners of the faith pervert those teachings into their own version of the truth or out-of-context to prove a ridiculous point.
Now, I'm not even christian, but I at least respect when the bible is used properly, as opposed to being used as a justification for things like protesting the funerals of soldiers.
I just want to point out that when you behave as an anti-christian, as opposed to just a non-christian, you are behaving exactly as the fundamentalists that you are trying to insult. Nice.
The point that needs to be made has been said: You don't have to give them your business. The Telco's have every right (except where prohibited by regulation) to charge you whatever the hell they want to.
That's how our economy works. If they aren't competitive because they are charging ridiculous fees, then they don't get the business. It's that simple.
But I also like Bull's idea:
"Btw, I called Comcast yesterday to cancel my $42.99 monthly cable IP service. Before I could finish the sentence the phone rep offered me 6 months at $19.99 to stay. I stayed. Try it and you might get the same!!!"
If you want to, or feel that you have to, give your business to one of these companies, then beat them at their own game. Work their system to your advantage.
For further example, how many people here used to be on BMG or a similar purchase program? How many times would you cancel right after you met your obligation, so that you can get the "come back to us" offer for (comparatively) super-cheap CD's?
Most of what I would say has been hit upon here, so I'll be brief with them.
1) This is a wonderful example of teaching responsibility to the girl that loaned the i-Pod. Don't loan out expensive things if you want to risk losing it.
2) This is a wonderful example of teaching responsibility to the girl that "lost" the i-Pod. Don't borrow things if you can't be responsible enough to safeguard them.
3) This is actually covered under the Liability portion of the Homeowner's coverage owned by the parents of the girl that "lost" the i-Pod... subject to the deductible (at least $500). Hence the reason they don't want to pay.
4) This is exactly what small-claims court is intended to handle. They're not going to the supreme court here. It's not really "suing", it's just bringing legal claims against another party.
5) The i-Pod is not a "toy". No more so than your remote control or digital camera. It's an electronic appliance. It's just a really small appliance. Even if it were a toy, it's a $300 toy, which happens to be (from what I could find the IL Statutes) the threshold to become a 4th Degree Felony theft.
6) I'd be interested to see what happens with the i-Tunes claim. According to most licensing agreements and the RIAA, the girl didn't "own" those songs. Can she really claim a loss of them? Hmm...
While I do think that the idea of "children suing" is ridiculous, I think some of the people reporting this story (yes, techdirt, you too...) were jumping on the "kids suing" hype-wagon. This is a couple of kids whose parents are using the legal system as it was designed to be used: arbitrating a disagreement where no malicious crime was committed.
If you hate the USA so much then shut your ass and fucking get out of my country already.
Yet another reason to start a USA-hater-beat-down service."
-Mike
So, you're saying that we don't have the freedom to disagree with our government? We don't have to freedom to dissent and voice our dissatisfaction with how our country is run? And that if we do, we should be physically beaten?
Nice. You've just showed the same attitude of many of the "terrorist" nations and dictatorial powers, such as Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.
Now that you've voiced your meat-headed, ignorant, fascist, and hate-filled opinion, kindly shut up and go back to polishing your car's american flag stickers.
First, I want to say it's amazing that you put "I knew this thread would get tons of posts" and "No one will take it seriously" in the same post.
Since you're number 43, I'd say that there have been plenty of people taking the subject seriously. Sure, some of those posts have been mildly-retarded flames ::ahem::, but to say "wow this is going to be popular" but "it's going nowhere".... Ahhh... I love the smell of self-contradiction in the air. Smells like easy victory.
I'll touch briefly on the rest of your points:
"I say it again, the media and sites like this pick these stories up because they know it gets eyeballs."
I'll will assume that, based on the "I say it again", that you were the AC from comment #1? Of course this site is going to pick up the story. If you read the entire article, you'd notice that Mike wasn't talking about "some guy trying to ban porn in hotels", he was talking about the absurdity of banning porn in hotels period. And since this ban would be technology based, and since censorship is a hot-topic in tech circles, I'd say that this article is quite comfortable here. It may not fall 100% within your idea of what should be here, but hey, you're not running this place are you?
"Its not news, nothing will come of it, the hotels will tell this guy to F.O., the Justice Dept probably said "yeah, we will look into this for you" and then laughed when the guy left."
1) It is news. Other's didn't know about it, now they do. That's news.
2) This guy's crusade doesn't have to go anywhere. That's not the point. The censorship issue is.
3) It's not about the hotels telling this guy to F.O., it's about the hotels being forced into censorship by hypothetical legislation. That's all this whole thing is... a discussion about hypothetical censorship.
4) I'm sure the Justice Department did get a good laugh out of it. And I hope that's as far as they go with it. Again, that's another point of this thread.
Finally, if you are AC#1, thank you for the Snakes on a Plane throw-in. It's nice to see people toss a non-sequitur wrapped around a red-herring. And since you were tossing that at a person to insult or belittle them, instead of disproving thier point, I'd say that makes it an Ad Hominem too. Congradualtions! You just pulled off the coveted Logical Fallacy Ass-Hat... oops, I mean Hat-Trick.
"the idea alone of limiting porn in anyway is absurd.If they didnt want people to turn stupid/insane/perverted/so on, they should ban television - it suggests a lot more about sex/doing stupid things/so on to kids than porn does, seeing how most kids nvr watch porn until they're like 10. Bsides, who can really ban evry possible p2p connection(aka internet), and then enforce tht law?(dun answer), so as long as i get to watch my pr0n and nobody/machine stops me im fine with bush - he could b under political pressure/parental pressure/old age pressure/the jesus pressure/the congress pressure/the agent 47 pressure for all i care. "
-Mr.Something
I agree with you that limiting porn is absurd. However you're going in the wrong direction. You are saying that it's absurd on the standpoint of enforcement. "How could they ever be able to do that?" you say. The point, however, is whether or not they should do that. The answer, in my opinion, is no.
"from: som so-called-socialist pointing laughing at the biggest failiure of democracy he has evr seen while preparing to shoot everyone in his school"
-Mr.Something
We're not a democracy. We're a republic. If we were a democracy, then every single vote would be counted instead of the "averaging" Electoral College system we have.
"(watch som FBI agent filter search this and think im actually gona shoot evry1 at my school lol)
"-Mr.Something
We can hope.
Aside: please learn to type full words. I don't care that much about spelling (hell, if it weren't for spell check, I might as well be typing in a different language). But if you are going to type in your cutesy little leet-speak, at least pay for my aspirin.
"I am pretty sure if would ask any pedofile when they started, they would say it was with the same kind of "innocent" porn that is shown in those hotel rooms. "
-Mattone
Of course they're going to say that the hotel porn made them do it. Gods forbid that anyone take responsibility for their actions. If you ask enough pedophiles, I'm sure one of them would say that the talking kazoo made them do it.
"You don't like porn movies - OK - shut up and don't watch them."
-Frink
Thank you! Well said!.
That's the root problem at such "for the children", "for the people", and "for common decency" rallying cries. There is always a channel button, a mute button, an off button. No one has forced you to watch anything. Stop trying to save us from ourselves damnit. If we hurt ourselves, kill ourselves or what have you, then fine. Our choice. We're helping prove Darwin right. Who are you to get in the way of evolution? And don't start trying to save my soul either. If I'm so twisted and perverted, why would you want to spend eternity in the same afterlife as me anyway? To quote a great (albeit, fictional) man, "Why don't we just ignore each other until we go away?"
"It's truly unfortunate that every time some fanatic does something utterly stupid, the group he is associated with bears the burden."
-Insaniac
Yes, it is unfortunate, but if the group wants to disassociate itself, it needs to make sure people understand that the person is not affiliated. Similar to what the National Institute on Media and the Family did with Jack Thompson.
"But, no one's rights are in jeopardy because of pornography. As long as it isn't aired on TV as commercials during kids shows where it would become unavoidable, there is no violation of personal rights."
-Insaniac
Wrong. If it's aired on TV as commercials during kids shows, then the parents need to find the aforementioned off button. Period. It is not, nor should it be, the media's or the media-regulation's responsibility to safeguard our morals.
It is not a right to be able to watch television. That's a luxury. It's not a right to have television programming that's clean of anything you find objectionable. It is your right to not have someone tell you what you have to watch, then force you to watch it. Since I don't see anyone being held at gunpoint or coerced into watching porn, I'd say that our rights are safe here.
The only rights in danger are the rights of those who wish to view porn and wouldn't be able to because it's outlawed. In my opinion, the law against porn to minors is a violation of rights. It's a law based on "moral decency" that removes the responsibility of child-rearing from the parents. It's a law founded under the pretense of "preventing the development of perverts and predators".
Since that law was conceived so long ago, I submit that it was done so without the benefit of studies to support this assertion. I would like to see evidence that viewing porn before a certain age could lead to perversion in any substantial numbers, especially if that viewing were offset by proper parental education.
I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make about the damage caused by this "theft." In theory, yes, everything you say is entirely possible... and, hell, it's even probable.
There's just one problem. There has never been any real evidence to show that piracy of music has hurt sales. In fact, if I remember some of Mike's rants correctly, there's evidence that industry sales are up in recent past.
So, if you've had to downsize due to dropping sales, it's because you have not been able to adequately adapt to a change in the market. Was the cause of that change legal? No, probably not. Was it moral? That's an argument best left to philosophy. Besides, Wal-Mart coming in and driving out little businesses... moral? You'll get different answers to that question from the small-business owner versus a Wal-Mart shareholder.
And in your airplane analogy (very good one, btw): you may not be able to compete with the price of the Chinese knock-off, but price isn't the only selling point. I work in the insurance industry. In car insurance, my company is cheaper one week, and not cheaper the next week. I have to show the customer the value of my companyversus the other guy. And my value comes from the service I provide: my claims service, my product availability, how easily they can reach me, fringe benefit coverages, etc. If I sell on price alone, I'm not going to win.
And that's what the recording industry has failed (miserably) to do: provide a value. Since all you can download is less than CD-quality MP3's and substandard video, the ##IA is in the enviable position to put out a product that is so much better than these crappy copies. But, instead of doing that, they pump out over-priced garbage that's laiden with DRM and other henderances (and risks... remember Sony?). They have made it (or kept it) to where the drop in recording quality is an acceptable trade-off for easier-to-use product.
##IA has always said that they can't "compete with free" but the articles and comments here have shown time and time again how they can... if they would just change their business model.
Bottom line is this: Whatever the cause, and whatever the legality of that cause, the industry and it's market has changed. It happens. The only thing that can be done is to adapt to the new market or don't.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels it's bad that the focus is shifting away from "are they guilty?" to "how can I make it easier to get them off the hook." I know that jury selection is supposed to be designed to make sure the peers that are selected are non-biased (impossible, I'd say) and objective. I didn't know that our "justice" system allowed for the intentional selection of members that are more favorable. Funny, I guess it's my foolish naivety that makes that sound a little... oh, I don't know... opposite to what the system is supposed to do?
On all the comments about morals... morals are in the eye of the beholder. That all depends on who you ask and how they have defined "stealing" or "free distribution". Remember, there's a whole group of people who believe that it's not only morally right, but morally imperative, to bomb innocent people to make points.
Now, on to the actual comments:
"Let me reiterate, for the majority of the songs on the album: I've already bought them, some I've already bought in a remastered format. Why should I have to pay again to get these songs on a new playist?"
-ShimmyShimmy
because they are new songs. It doesn't matter that they subject, lyrics, notes, chords, etc. have been recorded before. Just like if a band covers a song from another artist. They can't make money off of that song (without proper copyright authorization), but they can be compensated for going through the effort of bringing you, their fan, their artistic take on that song.
"So because you own a bruce willis dvd collection you should not have to pay for his latest movie that just came out? He owes you that much for being a loyal customer?"
-huh?
Bad example. Bruce Willis wouldn't be the only person with a stake in that production. If he were the only actor, camera person, director, sound manager, et. al... then yeah, maybe. But no, bad example.
"Arent all of the marketing dollars the same for that recording?"
-huh?
Doesn't matter. Go read the speech by Courtney Love. Yeah, I don't really care for her either, but I was impressed by what she had to say.
Long-short: the band ultimately ends up paying for the marketing and production for the Set, but sees sickeningly little from the sales.
"Fruanhoffer in germany went to the riaa and asked if they wanted onboard before it ever was released....they said it would not amount to anything.....now they swallow the medicine harshly."
-The Enlighted One
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't surprise me though. History is replete with examples of industries, municipalities, people, groups, etc. that missed out on a golden opportunity. In my opinion, that's almost a requirement. In missing that opportunity, those left behind are forced (usually, in theory at least) to innovate in order to keep up.
What is somewhat new, however, is seeing on of those left behind going on a misguided crusade to keep things status quo.
But hey, here's one idea. Let's just turn the volume up on our MP3 players (chock-full o' "stolen" music) and ignore their protests. Let's soundly defeat them at their own games and wave them a tearless goodbye when they are dragged down the abyss of their own idiocy. Which, by the looks of some of the articles coming through here, we are starting. It does appear that the tide is starting to turn.
"That must mean they don't make good music..."
-Chris
Nice. Way to support the RIAA's point of view. Just because an artist distributes music for free, they must suck? I won't even go into how that's a horrible, horrible piece of logic.
I have seen artists from all corners of musical flavor distributing their songs for free. Since all of these artists represent almost all forms of music (and by your logic, therefore suck), I guess all music sucks, huh? If that's your view though, it does beg the question: why do you care what's given away free? You obviously (by your logic) don't like any music, so why does this discussion even merit your attention?
"The guy wasn't selling ink cartridges. He was selling labels that fit a certain printer."
-Karen
No, these guys are right on target. Here's why:
"Hi. Would you like to buy these GT-Direct Printer Cartridges? They are compatible with HP model XYZ printers."
Exact same thing. The only difference would be if I stole HP's patented methods for producing the carts. And if I backwards engineered my carts to fit their ports, I'm not even "copying" their carts. I'll just make the tops round or something and BAM... different item.
On the post: RIAA Following MPAA's Lead In Brainwashing Kids
Wait a second...
If the RIAA has its way, we won't have any students left in universities. You know... since all college-age kids are thieves who whine about not being able download things for free without paying for them. And they should all go to jail and/or be shot. Right, Real world Rick? Right buddy? Eh? You're with me on this, right?
On the post: FBI Shows Off Big Database... Just As UK Shows Why Big Databases Are Bad
OH NOeZ!!!
Look people, big-brother has a database and is not afraid to use it... and that's new to you? Dalane said it best (when he finally got the post to work ;) ): You think this is the first database the government has? And do you think that the government is the only entity that has you on a database?
When the whole Homeland Security thing was starting up, the US government went to Microsoft to ask about setting up a large database. After giving MS the parameters that they wanted the DB to cover, MS told them "go talk to State Farm".
I'm not kidding.
State Farm has the largest and most complex and comprehensive marketing database in the US. My point is that your information is already in databases. This is just one more for the list. Yeah, it's probably a bit more high-profile, but denying the FBI their database is just going to remove one pebble from the pond.
Now... all of that said, I don't agree with anyone I don't know and/or trust having my information. Be it government or corporation. And guess how much I trust either.
The Franklin quote appears in many variations, my favorite is
And it's true. Franklin would have wept if he saw the Homeland Security initiated in his time.
Go read "1984", or watch "V for Vendetta" if you want to see where this kind of thing could lead. I won't say that it will, but it's a lot more possible than most people would like to admit.
Sorry this post kinda rambled from one point to another. Kinda in a rush at the moment. :(
On the post: What If You Had An Online Bulls**t Detector As A Browser Plugin?
Prediction Time
I'm laying odds that not too long from now, a US company will try this, make it actually work... then get sued by another company who "had the idea before" and claims to have actually patented it.
This story just couldn't end without a patent suit getting started.
OH... And I know that responding to Potato Fucker over there just eggs him on, but oh well. As someone said earlier... Die. Soon. Please.
On the post: Asking ISPs To Block Hate Speech Is The Wrong Solution
Re: Re: (pedophelia comment)
Actually, yes it's fine to keep banning it. Not just because it's bad, but because it's illegal. It is not illegal to express hate.
Also, hate speech doesn't harm anyone... well, aside from making them feel uncomfortable. Pedophilia is damaging to the child and is an example of one person's actions directly inflicting harm on another, who is incapable of defending themselves.
So, yeah, let's keep banning that.
On the post: How Litigious Are We? Kid Sues Friend Over Lost iPod
Re: The Driver vs The Horse
I've talked about negligence before, but since it's part of my profession, I don't mind educating about it.
Here's the deal. For someone to be considered negligent, four things must be met.
1) There has to be a "reasonable" and "prudent" duty to perform (to do or not do something)
2) There has to be a breach of that duty (failing to do or failing to not do something)
3) There has to be observable and quantifiable damages
4) There has to be proximate cause (an unbroken chain of events linking the failed duty to the damages caused).
Now, anyone with one iota of common sense would say that the farm hand failed in his duties to secure the horse. Common sense would tell you that it's highly likely that the failure to lock the horse up is what caused the accident.
Unfortunately, it's not about common sense. So, let's put the actions of the two parties through our little 4-step machine.
Farm Hand:
The Driver:
You could argue that the passenger died as the result of the driver's inability to control his vehicle after a sudden swerve, and that falls outside of his "reasonable and prudent" duties. You don't have to be a professional stunt driver to drive safely. I'm sure his defense tried this or something similar. It sounds like the prosecution went down the path of least resistance. It's easier to show the driver failed to act that it is to show proximate cause of the ranch hand.
Now... I know people are going to disagree with my view on this. That's fine. All I ask is that when you argue against it, make sure you're not arguing from the viewpoint of common sense. CS does not apply in the law. Saying it is "common sense that the horse got out and a person died" is making assumptions, and you cannot do that in a case as serious as one that involves the death of a person.
Now... you can apply the same 4-step proof to the actions of the two girls to find out which one (if either... there's doesn't always have to be someone at-fault here. They call them "accidents" for a reason) was negligent. If the friend is negligent, then it is up to her (or her parents, since she's a minor) to indemnify the injured party.
On the post: Asking ISPs To Block Hate Speech Is The Wrong Solution
Re: American faith
And what are you talking about with the cultural roots? What does that have to do with debate?
1) there are many cultures that used debate to solve problems... no more or less successfully than those cultures that used other methods.
2) Where do you get the idea that Americans lack strong cultural roots? That's an unnecessary generalization on your part. I can go anywhere within 5 miles of my house and get you at least a couple of example of "proud ethnics" from a wide array of different cultures.
Seriously... way way non sequitur.
On the post: How Litigious Are We? Kid Sues Friend Over Lost iPod
Re: What is school for?
Maybe the friend borrowed it over the weekend and was returning it on a monday or something. The article doesn't really say that the owner brought it to school and lent it to the friend at school.
Not a big deal, but people were focusing on that a bit too much, IMHO.
On the post: How Litigious Are We? Kid Sues Friend Over Lost iPod
Re: Re: What is wrong with the litigation?
You're still missing the point. These are two different court systems. The one handling the $300 piece of property is Small Claims Court. The one handling the murder trial is a Criminal Court.
The i-Pod case is not detracting from a murder trial here. That's like saying that the animal show on the Discovery Channel is taking away air time from the music videos on MTV (they still show music there, right?)
Now, let me deviate off-topic for a moment. Drop the bible-bashing. 1) This isn't the place for it, and 2) Arun's use of the Exodus quote was a proper use and in-context. Whatever your opinion is on whether the bible is fact or fiction, the purpose of the bible is to give parables... example stories on how to live a better life. Similar to Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac". The actual teachings of the bible (old and new) do illustrate a fair, peaceful, and happy lifestyle. Unfortunately, many practitioners of the faith pervert those teachings into their own version of the truth or out-of-context to prove a ridiculous point.
Now, I'm not even christian, but I at least respect when the bible is used properly, as opposed to being used as a justification for things like protesting the funerals of soldiers.
I just want to point out that when you behave as an anti-christian, as opposed to just a non-christian, you are behaving exactly as the fundamentalists that you are trying to insult. Nice.
Now, I apologize for stepping so far off-topic.
On the post: BellSouth Adds New Fee To Pay For The Non-Fee They No Longer Need To Collect
The point has been made
That's how our economy works. If they aren't competitive because they are charging ridiculous fees, then they don't get the business. It's that simple.
But I also like Bull's idea:
If you want to, or feel that you have to, give your business to one of these companies, then beat them at their own game. Work their system to your advantage.
For further example, how many people here used to be on BMG or a similar purchase program? How many times would you cancel right after you met your obligation, so that you can get the "come back to us" offer for (comparatively) super-cheap CD's?
Same idea.
On the post: How Litigious Are We? Kid Sues Friend Over Lost iPod
Just a few points
1) This is a wonderful example of teaching responsibility to the girl that loaned the i-Pod. Don't loan out expensive things if you want to risk losing it.
2) This is a wonderful example of teaching responsibility to the girl that "lost" the i-Pod. Don't borrow things if you can't be responsible enough to safeguard them.
3) This is actually covered under the Liability portion of the Homeowner's coverage owned by the parents of the girl that "lost" the i-Pod... subject to the deductible (at least $500). Hence the reason they don't want to pay.
4) This is exactly what small-claims court is intended to handle. They're not going to the supreme court here. It's not really "suing", it's just bringing legal claims against another party.
5) The i-Pod is not a "toy". No more so than your remote control or digital camera. It's an electronic appliance. It's just a really small appliance. Even if it were a toy, it's a $300 toy, which happens to be (from what I could find the IL Statutes) the threshold to become a 4th Degree Felony theft.
6) I'd be interested to see what happens with the i-Tunes claim. According to most licensing agreements and the RIAA, the girl didn't "own" those songs. Can she really claim a loss of them? Hmm...
While I do think that the idea of "children suing" is ridiculous, I think some of the people reporting this story (yes, techdirt, you too...) were jumping on the "kids suing" hype-wagon. This is a couple of kids whose parents are using the legal system as it was designed to be used: arbitrating a disagreement where no malicious crime was committed.
On the post: Oh No! People Might Watch Porn In Hotel Rooms! Oh, The Horror!
Re: Traitors
So, you're saying that we don't have the freedom to disagree with our government? We don't have to freedom to dissent and voice our dissatisfaction with how our country is run? And that if we do, we should be physically beaten?
Nice. You've just showed the same attitude of many of the "terrorist" nations and dictatorial powers, such as Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.
Now that you've voiced your meat-headed, ignorant, fascist, and hate-filled opinion, kindly shut up and go back to polishing your car's american flag stickers.
On the post: Oh No! People Might Watch Porn In Hotel Rooms! Oh, The Horror!
Re: Thread going nowhere
Since you're number 43, I'd say that there have been plenty of people taking the subject seriously. Sure, some of those posts have been mildly-retarded flames ::ahem::, but to say "wow this is going to be popular" but "it's going nowhere".... Ahhh... I love the smell of self-contradiction in the air. Smells like easy victory.
I'll touch briefly on the rest of your points:
I'll will assume that, based on the "I say it again", that you were the AC from comment #1? Of course this site is going to pick up the story. If you read the entire article, you'd notice that Mike wasn't talking about "some guy trying to ban porn in hotels", he was talking about the absurdity of banning porn in hotels period. And since this ban would be technology based, and since censorship is a hot-topic in tech circles, I'd say that this article is quite comfortable here. It may not fall 100% within your idea of what should be here, but hey, you're not running this place are you?
1) It is news. Other's didn't know about it, now they do. That's news.
2) This guy's crusade doesn't have to go anywhere. That's not the point. The censorship issue is.
3) It's not about the hotels telling this guy to F.O., it's about the hotels being forced into censorship by hypothetical legislation. That's all this whole thing is... a discussion about hypothetical censorship.
4) I'm sure the Justice Department did get a good laugh out of it. And I hope that's as far as they go with it. Again, that's another point of this thread.
Finally, if you are AC#1, thank you for the Snakes on a Plane throw-in. It's nice to see people toss a non-sequitur wrapped around a red-herring. And since you were tossing that at a person to insult or belittle them, instead of disproving thier point, I'd say that makes it an Ad Hominem too. Congradualtions! You just pulled off the coveted Logical Fallacy Ass-Hat... oops, I mean Hat-Trick.
On the post: Oh No! People Might Watch Porn In Hotel Rooms! Oh, The Horror!
So many bases to cover...
I agree with you that limiting porn is absurd. However you're going in the wrong direction. You are saying that it's absurd on the standpoint of enforcement. "How could they ever be able to do that?" you say. The point, however, is whether or not they should do that. The answer, in my opinion, is no.
We're not a democracy. We're a republic. If we were a democracy, then every single vote would be counted instead of the "averaging" Electoral College system we have.
We can hope.
Aside: please learn to type full words. I don't care that much about spelling (hell, if it weren't for spell check, I might as well be typing in a different language). But if you are going to type in your cutesy little leet-speak, at least pay for my aspirin.
Of course they're going to say that the hotel porn made them do it. Gods forbid that anyone take responsibility for their actions. If you ask enough pedophiles, I'm sure one of them would say that the talking kazoo made them do it.
Thank you! Well said!.
That's the root problem at such "for the children", "for the people", and "for common decency" rallying cries. There is always a channel button, a mute button, an off button. No one has forced you to watch anything. Stop trying to save us from ourselves damnit. If we hurt ourselves, kill ourselves or what have you, then fine. Our choice. We're helping prove Darwin right. Who are you to get in the way of evolution? And don't start trying to save my soul either. If I'm so twisted and perverted, why would you want to spend eternity in the same afterlife as me anyway? To quote a great (albeit, fictional) man, "Why don't we just ignore each other until we go away?"
Yes, it is unfortunate, but if the group wants to disassociate itself, it needs to make sure people understand that the person is not affiliated. Similar to what the National Institute on Media and the Family did with Jack Thompson.
Wrong. If it's aired on TV as commercials during kids shows, then the parents need to find the aforementioned off button. Period. It is not, nor should it be, the media's or the media-regulation's responsibility to safeguard our morals.
It is not a right to be able to watch television. That's a luxury. It's not a right to have television programming that's clean of anything you find objectionable. It is your right to not have someone tell you what you have to watch, then force you to watch it. Since I don't see anyone being held at gunpoint or coerced into watching porn, I'd say that our rights are safe here.
The only rights in danger are the rights of those who wish to view porn and wouldn't be able to because it's outlawed. In my opinion, the law against porn to minors is a violation of rights. It's a law based on "moral decency" that removes the responsibility of child-rearing from the parents. It's a law founded under the pretense of "preventing the development of perverts and predators".
Since that law was conceived so long ago, I submit that it was done so without the benefit of studies to support this assertion. I would like to see evidence that viewing porn before a certain age could lead to perversion in any substantial numbers, especially if that viewing were offset by proper parental education.
On the post: Note To Record Labels: Big Musicians Don't Need All Your Services (And Attached Strings) Any More
Re: Clarification of what I said. . .
There's just one problem. There has never been any real evidence to show that piracy of music has hurt sales. In fact, if I remember some of Mike's rants correctly, there's evidence that industry sales are up in recent past.
So, if you've had to downsize due to dropping sales, it's because you have not been able to adequately adapt to a change in the market. Was the cause of that change legal? No, probably not. Was it moral? That's an argument best left to philosophy. Besides, Wal-Mart coming in and driving out little businesses... moral? You'll get different answers to that question from the small-business owner versus a Wal-Mart shareholder.
And in your airplane analogy (very good one, btw): you may not be able to compete with the price of the Chinese knock-off, but price isn't the only selling point. I work in the insurance industry. In car insurance, my company is cheaper one week, and not cheaper the next week. I have to show the customer the value of my companyversus the other guy. And my value comes from the service I provide: my claims service, my product availability, how easily they can reach me, fringe benefit coverages, etc. If I sell on price alone, I'm not going to win.
And that's what the recording industry has failed (miserably) to do: provide a value. Since all you can download is less than CD-quality MP3's and substandard video, the ##IA is in the enviable position to put out a product that is so much better than these crappy copies. But, instead of doing that, they pump out over-priced garbage that's laiden with DRM and other henderances (and risks... remember Sony?). They have made it (or kept it) to where the drop in recording quality is an acceptable trade-off for easier-to-use product.
##IA has always said that they can't "compete with free" but the articles and comments here have shown time and time again how they can... if they would just change their business model.
Bottom line is this: Whatever the cause, and whatever the legality of that cause, the industry and it's market has changed. It happens. The only thing that can be done is to adapt to the new market or don't.
On the post: Maybe We Can Let R2D2 Be The Judge, Too
Re:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels it's bad that the focus is shifting away from "are they guilty?" to "how can I make it easier to get them off the hook." I know that jury selection is supposed to be designed to make sure the peers that are selected are non-biased (impossible, I'd say) and objective. I didn't know that our "justice" system allowed for the intentional selection of members that are more favorable. Funny, I guess it's my foolish naivety that makes that sound a little... oh, I don't know... opposite to what the system is supposed to do?
On the post: Note To Record Labels: Big Musicians Don't Need All Your Services (And Attached Strings) Any More
Few points here...
Now, on to the actual comments:
because they are new songs. It doesn't matter that they subject, lyrics, notes, chords, etc. have been recorded before. Just like if a band covers a song from another artist. They can't make money off of that song (without proper copyright authorization), but they can be compensated for going through the effort of bringing you, their fan, their artistic take on that song.
Bad example. Bruce Willis wouldn't be the only person with a stake in that production. If he were the only actor, camera person, director, sound manager, et. al... then yeah, maybe. But no, bad example.
Doesn't matter. Go read the speech by Courtney Love. Yeah, I don't really care for her either, but I was impressed by what she had to say.
Long-short: the band ultimately ends up paying for the marketing and production for the Set, but sees sickeningly little from the sales.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't surprise me though. History is replete with examples of industries, municipalities, people, groups, etc. that missed out on a golden opportunity. In my opinion, that's almost a requirement. In missing that opportunity, those left behind are forced (usually, in theory at least) to innovate in order to keep up.
What is somewhat new, however, is seeing on of those left behind going on a misguided crusade to keep things status quo.
But hey, here's one idea. Let's just turn the volume up on our MP3 players (chock-full o' "stolen" music) and ignore their protests. Let's soundly defeat them at their own games and wave them a tearless goodbye when they are dragged down the abyss of their own idiocy. Which, by the looks of some of the articles coming through here, we are starting. It does appear that the tide is starting to turn.
Nice. Way to support the RIAA's point of view. Just because an artist distributes music for free, they must suck? I won't even go into how that's a horrible, horrible piece of logic.
I have seen artists from all corners of musical flavor distributing their songs for free. Since all of these artists represent almost all forms of music (and by your logic, therefore suck), I guess all music sucks, huh? If that's your view though, it does beg the question: why do you care what's given away free? You obviously (by your logic) don't like any music, so why does this discussion even merit your attention?
On the post: Earth-Shattering Study Confirms Young People Dig New Technology
Or...
On the post: RIAA Will Drop Cases If You Point Out That An IP Address Isn't A Person
Is the tide turning?
Damn, I hope so.
On the post: Misuse Trademark Law To Stop Competition And You May Owe Lost Sales
Re: re: missing the point
No, these guys are right on target. Here's why:
"Hi. Would you like to buy these GT-Direct Printer Cartridges? They are compatible with HP model XYZ printers."
Exact same thing. The only difference would be if I stole HP's patented methods for producing the carts. And if I backwards engineered my carts to fit their ports, I'm not even "copying" their carts. I'll just make the tops round or something and BAM... different item.
On the post: Next On CBS -- CSI: Breakfast Buffet
Re: Re: eggs could be just the start
YES! LMAO.
Personally, I can't wait to wipe my a$$ with some company logos. Who here hasn't wanted to do that with, say, MS or Apple, or HP...
Next >>