In every other civil realm deterrence constitutes treble damages, which is an asinine way of saying triple damages. So in this case the award should have been $23.76.
How many other people read that as "idiot contestant"?
"I would imagine that the lawyers at Fox and American Idol made sure he signed over all sorts of rights before performing that song on the air...."
You're absolutely right, Fox certainly owns the rights to "his" song. There's no way they're going to let him use their show to promote his song unless they own it.
There's a story about Abraham Lincoln back when he was a lawyer (and alive of course). He went into court one day and argued a point of law. The judge agreed with him and granted his requested relief. The next day Lincoln was back before the same judge arguing the exact opposite position that he argued the day before.
The judge said something along the lines of, "Why would you expect me to to rule the exact opposite as I ruled yesterday?"
To that Lincoln said, "Well, you're honor, yesterday you were wrong."
Wow, that's even worse. As others have pointed out, you never know when you can link to an article because you'll never know a priori when it'll be available online in the future. So few people/bloggers/aggregators will bother to even link to the NYT because it'd be simpler to avoid it. So even when advertising is paying well, the NYT will not benefit.
"is there anything they do that isn't available elsewhere"
They have a number of columnists who can't be read elsewhere. Those guys get pissed every time the NYT locks up their stuff because then no one reads them. But since you've never read the paper/site, I guess you won't miss anything.
Great comment about the complexity too. This plan reminds me of the Three Stooges drilling holes in their sinking boat to allow the water to drain out. Utterly complicated but in the end it only exacerbates the problem.
"Access can be gradually ramped up or down depending on macro trends in the market."
First, when he says "ramped up or down" does that mean the prices will sometimes go up or sometimes go away completely, or does it mean the prices will sometimes go up and sometimes get lower, but still exist.
If he's talking about occasionally getting rid of the price when advertising dollars are plentiful, his assumption that readers will suddenly come back might not work out so well. Some people will start reading again, but by the time a good number of readers come back, the advertising swing would likely go the other way. Thus, the paper would not have had the time to take advantage of the upswing.
And I highly doubt he means that they'll occasionally get rid of the price when advertising dollars are plentiful because that also means they'd have to lay off their entire subscription department. Which makes no sense.
That means the paper will keep the price, but fluctuate it, but that won't work either. When confronted with paying even a nominal amount for online news, the vast majority of people will simply go elsewhere. The whole notion of plugging in your credit card information or paypal information and setting up yet another account is simply not worth it when there is so much free news out there.
"Going to extremes for petty occurances does not make sense. there is a thing called common sense and don't forget judgement calls."
Sure, let's assume your judgment as prosecutor is good and you decide not to prosecute these girls. But what about the next prosecutor, what if he's a religious nut? Or the one after that, she's trying to prove she's tough on crime?
The only real solution is to change the law. That will solve the problem, not just bury it for someone else to dig up.
I'll say this again and I'll get tons of criticism for it, but...
Child pornography laws do not differentiate between who produces the porn. Whether a 50 year old father is taking sexual pictures of his daughter or whether the daughter is taking sexual pictures of herself. Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals.
You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault. If the law is wrong, the burden is on the state's legislature to change it. The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the laws of his state, not to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist when you disagree with them.
Everyone who thinks the girls should not be prosecuted should write their local state's legislator and demand their child pornography laws should be changed. Only then will this problem be fixed.
The name "100 books challenge" merely describes a challenge in which 100 books are read. I don't see how that could every have been trademarked. I don't see how it could ever withstand a court challenge. I hope they fight this BS.
"True Net Neutrality = anarchy and unstoppable, harmful chaos."
You do realize that our phone system is neutral? You can use it to sell pot. You can use it to phone in a kidnapping demand. You can use it to sell child porn. But yet the phone company is under no obligation to search its lines for such activities and stop such activities. And yet, somehow, we've managed not to decay into a world of unstoppable chaos.
ISPs should be neutral. Except when it comes to government granted monopolies. And child porn. And fake child porn. And offensive porn. And gambling. And promoting drugs. And terrorists activities. And activities the government might happen to think might lead to terrorism, such as paint balling.
But other than those, and maybe a few other things, the ISPs should treat the net as being complete neutral. We live in a free country and the government should not impede free speech. Except in those areas discussed above, and maybe in a few more.
So what everyone appears to be saying is that Centre National Prive de Formation a Distance is a scam? That Centre National Prive de Formation a Distance scams users? That Centre National Prive de Formation a Distance are a bunch of scammy scammers perpetrating scams on innocent children? That every person employed with Centre National Prive de Formation a Distance are criminal scammers?
I work in a court and the common belief is that cameras in the courtroom would turn hearings and trials into spectacles, with attorneys putting on shows for the entertainment of those watching.
There are two problems with that belief. First, judges have authority to limit such displays. And second, the vast majority of attorneys are not entertainers and simply want to proceed with the hearing/trial in an efficient manner.
Cameras will be allowed. The old fogeys have to die off first.
On the post: Court Reduces Award In Jammie Thomas-Rasset Case From $80,000 Per Song To $2,250
In every other civil realm deterrence constitutes treble damages, which is an asinine way of saying triple damages. So in this case the award should have been $23.76.
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
How many other people read that as "idiot contestant"?
"I would imagine that the lawyers at Fox and American Idol made sure he signed over all sorts of rights before performing that song on the air...."
You're absolutely right, Fox certainly owns the rights to "his" song. There's no way they're going to let him use their show to promote his song unless they own it.
On the post: Rescuecom Wants It Both Ways Over Keyword Ads; Involved In Two Lawsuits... But On Opposite Sides
Re: Re:
On the post: Rescuecom Wants It Both Ways Over Keyword Ads; Involved In Two Lawsuits... But On Opposite Sides
The judge said something along the lines of, "Why would you expect me to to rule the exact opposite as I ruled yesterday?"
To that Lincoln said, "Well, you're honor, yesterday you were wrong."
On the post: Flexible Or Paradoxical? Why The NY Times' Plan Is Inherently Self-Limiting
Re: Re:
This is going to be a confused mess.
On the post: Amazon Backs Down On Demanding Publisher Use Only Its Own Print-On-Demand Solution
On the post: Flexible Or Paradoxical? Why The NY Times' Plan Is Inherently Self-Limiting
Re: Way too complex.
They have a number of columnists who can't be read elsewhere. Those guys get pissed every time the NYT locks up their stuff because then no one reads them. But since you've never read the paper/site, I guess you won't miss anything.
Great comment about the complexity too. This plan reminds me of the Three Stooges drilling holes in their sinking boat to allow the water to drain out. Utterly complicated but in the end it only exacerbates the problem.
On the post: Flexible Or Paradoxical? Why The NY Times' Plan Is Inherently Self-Limiting
First, when he says "ramped up or down" does that mean the prices will sometimes go up or sometimes go away completely, or does it mean the prices will sometimes go up and sometimes get lower, but still exist.
If he's talking about occasionally getting rid of the price when advertising dollars are plentiful, his assumption that readers will suddenly come back might not work out so well. Some people will start reading again, but by the time a good number of readers come back, the advertising swing would likely go the other way. Thus, the paper would not have had the time to take advantage of the upswing.
And I highly doubt he means that they'll occasionally get rid of the price when advertising dollars are plentiful because that also means they'd have to lay off their entire subscription department. Which makes no sense.
That means the paper will keep the price, but fluctuate it, but that won't work either. When confronted with paying even a nominal amount for online news, the vast majority of people will simply go elsewhere. The whole notion of plugging in your credit card information or paypal information and setting up yet another account is simply not worth it when there is so much free news out there.
On the post: Verizon -- Who Promised Not To Do This -- Says It's Kicking Accused File Sharers Off The Internet [Update: Or... Maybe Not]
Re: New Law?
Let's hope no one uses your phone during a kidnapping to call in the ransom demand.
On the post: CBS Would Rather Kill Off Classic Jack Benny Video Footage Than Let Fans Rescue And Digitize It
Re: Re:
I thought my use of "magically" made it clear. I guess I'd better pay up for my inappropriate use of sarcasm.
On the post: CBS Would Rather Kill Off Classic Jack Benny Video Footage Than Let Fans Rescue And Digitize It
On the post: Prosecutors Still Want To Charge Girl Who Sent Naked Photo Of Herself For Child Porn
Re: Re: Ima Fish
Sure, let's assume your judgment as prosecutor is good and you decide not to prosecute these girls. But what about the next prosecutor, what if he's a religious nut? Or the one after that, she's trying to prove she's tough on crime?
The only real solution is to change the law. That will solve the problem, not just bury it for someone else to dig up.
On the post: Prosecutors Still Want To Charge Girl Who Sent Naked Photo Of Herself For Child Porn
Re: Re:
So you think the real solution is to leave this stupid law on the books as it is? That's your solution? Wow. Great plan.
On the post: Prosecutors Still Want To Charge Girl Who Sent Naked Photo Of Herself For Child Porn
Child pornography laws do not differentiate between who produces the porn. Whether a 50 year old father is taking sexual pictures of his daughter or whether the daughter is taking sexual pictures of herself. Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals.
You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault. If the law is wrong, the burden is on the state's legislature to change it. The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the laws of his state, not to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist when you disagree with them.
Everyone who thinks the girls should not be prosecuted should write their local state's legislator and demand their child pornography laws should be changed. Only then will this problem be fixed.
On the post: Be Careful Challenging Others To Read 100 Books, As You Might Infringe On Someone's Trademark
On the post: This Is Why We Worry About Net Neutrality Regs: Loopholes For RIAA/MPAA
Re:
You do realize that our phone system is neutral? You can use it to sell pot. You can use it to phone in a kidnapping demand. You can use it to sell child porn. But yet the phone company is under no obligation to search its lines for such activities and stop such activities. And yet, somehow, we've managed not to decay into a world of unstoppable chaos.
On the post: This Is Why We Worry About Net Neutrality Regs: Loopholes For RIAA/MPAA
Re: Re:
On the post: This Is Why We Worry About Net Neutrality Regs: Loopholes For RIAA/MPAA
But other than those, and maybe a few other things, the ISPs should treat the net as being complete neutral. We live in a free country and the government should not impede free speech. Except in those areas discussed above, and maybe in a few more.
On the post: French Court Forcing Google To Remove Word 'Scam' From Google Suggest
On the post: Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
There are two problems with that belief. First, judges have authority to limit such displays. And second, the vast majority of attorneys are not entertainers and simply want to proceed with the hearing/trial in an efficient manner.
Cameras will be allowed. The old fogeys have to die off first.
Next >>