"Your jihad against misspellings, which apparently extends to postings in the comment section for blog sites, is farcical. "
- Darren
A prime example of overly-verbose. The Jihad comment, while inaccurate, was a nice touch though. It adds a new dimension to your impression of my 'struggle against misspelling'.
The whole first sentence, when I read it, gave me the image of Mr. Howell from Gilligan's Island. Just snooty and snobbish. I'm sure you were making a point with the tone, so if that was your intention, congratulations.
As to the rest of your post, I'm not going to continue beating this dead horse. Even if I do enjoy the satisfying 'thunk'. So this is it all I have to say on it:
Yes, speed is commonly favored over spelling and grammar... but that does not make it OK. You can say 'it's the way of the times', but I refuse to accept it as 'the way it is' just because others are lazy. I have two choices: go along with something with which I disagree, or fight against it.
Just because others have accepted something is not sufficient reason for me to accept it.
A good example of improper use of 'larger' or 'less common' words:
And to slightly divert from the subject at hand, I'd also like to bring up how the use of technology has caused penmanship to entropy over the years.
-Bill
Entropy is a noun (see here). I believe the word you were intending is atrophy.
I don't like being an anal-retentive correction-monger, but that was a prime example of incorrectly using a less-than-common word in an 'everyday conversation'.
I think some people are drawing the wrong conclusions in regards to some of the intended points made herein.
Orwellian (good name, by the way), what most of us are trying to illustrate is that putting unnecessary words into a sentence, for the sole purpose of 'sounding smarter' or 'sounding more sophisticated', is a bad thing. It is counterproductive and confusing (intentionally so, sometimes).
I am not advocating the dumbing-down or retardation of our society by making all media use smaller words. I am advocating the proper use of larger words. Using a larger word to make a more colorful point is great. Using larger words for circumlocution is bad.
"by Zeroth404 on Apr 20th, 2006 @ 6:23am
'For the love of, would you people learn to spell check your posts?'
No. Get over it. I'm sick of hearing people bitch about this. It's been going for as long as the internet has been wired into the homes of AOL subscribers. The best you can do is STOP BITCHING"
No, the best thing we can do is not give up the fight. I'm not going to just roll over and accept the retardation of our society just because someone is tired of hearing people fight against it.
Sorry man, not going to happen.
Especially since the retardation is coming from laziness. I know most forums don't have a spell-checker built in. But guess what... word processors do. And the magic power of Copy & Paste means that I don't have to type something twice just to have it in a word processor and in a forum. Either type it in the WP first, spell check, then paste to forum; or, if you're feeling adventurous, type it here, copy it to the word processor, spell check it, then paste it here again.
Stop being lazy.
--This message brought to you by the magic of F7 and [CTRL+C] plus [CTRL+V]--
Now... anyone here who reads the news posts on PA would have notice awhile ago that it seemed Tycho got a word-a-day calendar... and used every single one of those bastards. He uses far, far too many "big words" and comes off looking like a tool.
I love linguistics... hell, I consider myself to be a cunning linguist (hehehe), but I don't want to have to have a damned thesaurus just to read a news post; especially when it's geared for younger audiences.
I know PA has an older fan-base too (like me), but its way over the top with the big words. And I'm not advocating the dumbing-down of communications. But one extreme is as bad as the other.
Tycho, you look like an idiot. Sorry man.
Oh, SKippyboy, the quote is
"Inconceivable!"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Don't want to sound like a hardass or something, but I love that movie. ;)
Like I said, you were giving the impression that you beloved these people were guilty unequivocally.
I agree that ignorance is not an excuse. I can, however, be a reason. Yes, people do need to be held accountable for their ignorance. Hopefully that will help give incentive to people to be more diligent in their actions.
All I'm saying is that there are circumstances where such 'excuses' should be allowable. They may be extremely rare, but to assume that there is never and will never be a reasonable situation where this could be acceptable... that's just foolish.
The trouble, of course, is that it's nearly impossible to make a dividing line between those situations and still have it be "fair". Philosophers have debated this kind of thing for ages... justice and fairness being in the eyes of the beholder, and such. Having people be --gasp-- accountable for their own actions won't fix the problem, but it'll damn sure help. On that, I agree with you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go fight some histamines... Damned Florida pollen.
--"I am forever amazed at the debates that follow an article which points out that people will do anything or say anything, even claim ignorance, to get something for nothing. "
You are giving the impression that you assume this person is guilty without knowing all of the facts. Are they claiming ignorance? Yes. Is it possible that they really were ignorant and really didn't engage in illegal file-sharing? YES!
--"The following debate became quite humorous to me, and I apologize if I hit a nerve."
Yup, it's very entertaining... and no, you didn't hit a nerve. I wasn't pissed in my previous post and apologize if I gave that impression. You and I have had some great debates in the past and I don't want either of us unnecessarily on the defensive.
--"The RIAA is not a governing body, it is a trade group."
By their actions, they are claiming all rights to govern the traffic of the media under their "control". I perhaps should have said that they are a self-proclaimed governing body. I know that they are not, legally, an entity that is supposed to have any real power; just influence.
--"They do not care about their people, they care about money."
No argument here. But if you listen to the RIAA propaganda, they are all about protecting the artists. Hitler wasn't really interested in bettering the race, he wanted to get rid of those things that were inferior. The RIAA wants to get rid of all things that challenge their control... which, in their opinion, would make the world a better place for artist.
--"I cannot attack your analogy because it is not an analogy."
Perhaps I used the wrong literary word, but I always hated English in school anyway. I was making a comparison of similarities between the RIAA's actions and the actions taken by the Nazi regime. Was analogy the wrong word? Allusion, perhaps?
--"And you said 'I'm not going to argue what is obviously an opinion.' and proceeded to argue it, 'Let's look at a similar argument from history.'"
I wasn't arguing (what appeared to be) your opinion that, as I said, "anyone who is anti-RIAA is a thief or a cheap-ass who wants to get free music." You've stated that you too are anti-RIAA, so perhaps my initial impression was incorrect. Nice to see that you don't generalize like that.
What I did want to argue is that not all of the arguments against the RIAA are an attempt to claim that file-sharing is legal. Some (perhaps a majority? Dunno) are about how the RIAA is going about their work.
Sorry if this seems a bit slap-dashed, but I'd doing this at work and keep getting interrupted mid-stream and it's really hard to keep my mind on-point.
Nunya, I'm not going to argue what is obviously an opinion. You have the perception that anyone who is anti-RIAA is a thief or a cheap-ass who wants to get free music. I can say with 100% accuracy and surety that this perception is wrong.
I can be that sure because I know that I am anti-RIAA and I don't just want free music (I am a cheap-ass though... eh, it's a flaw).
The RIAA, supposedly, wants to protect the copyrighted materials that are under their purview. And that's fine. That's understandable. The thing that I have a problem with is the way in which they are going about this protection and the extent they are going.
Let's look at a similar argument from history. You're immediately going to attack this analogy because it's an extreme one that you'll say doesn't fit the context. It does though, if you look at it.
There was once a governmental leader that wanted to make sure that his people were the best they could be. He wanted to make sure, that in the worlds eyes, his people were the cream of the crop; the best the human race had to offer. In order to do this, he had to do a bit of trimming to remove what was viewed as some slight impurities.
That's a very noble goal to want that for your people. Unfortunately, this leader went to some severe extremes to reach that goal. Killing millions in the name of his 'superior race'. Killing millions who were guilty of nothing more than being impure in his eyes. Got an idea who I'm talking about?
Yeah... I know I've run the RIAA/Nazi thing into the ground, but the similarities are there. We a have a governing body who is "looking out for their people", using strong-arm tactics against weaker people to enforce their will (which is legally-questionable), in whole-sale fashion against anyone this body finds against them. The only difference here is that one group used mass murder and genocide, while the other uses lawsuits for money.
Say what you want Nunya, but I'm just pissed at how the RIAA is doing their stuff here. I do disagree with some of their motivation. But hey, it's a capitalist society that motivates and rewards greed, so who's surprised there?
"Do you jaywalk? OMG jaywalking is ILLEGAL!!!11one" - mord3r
kinda off topic, but it's illegal in my city for women to walk around in public without wearing a belt. I shit you not. it's on the books. So much for "against the law" being the reason to not do something.
"Downloading the music is illegal. Uploading the music is illegal. Having a copy of a file is illegal (unless you have paid for it)." -Will anyone ever learn
Having a copy of a file is NOT illegal. You're grouping all things together as horribly as the RIAA does. If I purchased a file (music, program, whatever) and I copy that program for my own backup purposes, it's not illegal. If I purchase a song, rip it MP3 on my desktop (I store 99% of my music this way because I've had CDs stolen before), and then put a copy of that CD on my Laptop;that's not illegal. It's my freakin CD. I can do with that as I please, so long as I do not give others copies of that song without permission from the copyright holders.
"The problem here is one of symantics. They just don't have the words yet to show you you are breaking the law..." - Will anyone ever learn
So let me get this straight- even if there's not a law against it yet, it's already illegal? Does that even make sense to you? "I don't like what you're doing. It should be illegal, so I'll prosecute you even if there isn't a law against what you're doing".
Sorry; until they "have the words to show me that it's illegal"... i.e. write a freakin law against it... it's legal. Being an asshole bastard isn't illegal.
"If I downloaded your car in the middle of the night and just wanted to "share" you wouldn't have so much trouble thinking it was wrong????" -Will anyone ever learn
Apples to oranges here buddy. I own my car (well, the bank does, but I'm workin on it). I don't own the music I purchase; I own the copy I purchased and the media on which it came (the physical CD itself). If you illegally copy music from me, you're not taking my music; you're taking someone else's music. You're just using my copy to gain access to something that you would have otherwise had to pay for.
Sorry to poke holes in your theories here, but come on.
You may want to ask the RIAA to raise your paycheck. I don't think they're paying you enough for this.
"There are a lot of people out there that do not fully commprehend how to use a computer. I think Kazaa should get the pants sued off of it." - Anonymouse Coward
Hmm... let me see... No. No. No. and... uh... NO!
Freakin' sue-happy people. If ever there were a need for a targeted virus to be invented...
Look. One: If someone doesn't how to 'properly use a computer' and attempts to use it anyway... that's thier fault, not Kazaa's. Two: Kazaa is not responsible for people trading music (computer-literate or not)... they aren't requiring people to use thier product. That's like saying that Glock should be sued every time some psycho decides to off someone with a Glock.
If I --CHOOSE-- (big word there, hope you caught it)... choose to download music illegally, or to upload illegally, then that's my choice.
No one is responsible for the actions you take and decisions you make but yourself.
There should be a severe penalty for bringing about a frivolous lawsuit. I'm thinkin' death... or rape. or raped to death. yeah, that works.
"It's not THAT bad. Let's try to be just a little bit less cynical. The RIAA is just struggling to adapt to the digital age." - Trey
Yes, it is that bad. By their actions, the RIAA is labeling me (and millions of others) a criminal and a sub-citizen based on broad generalizations and assumptions that are misread from their own propaganda machine. I was actually going to draw an allusion to christianity, but I figured I'd get less flak if I used Nazis... no one likes Nazis.
The RIAA is not struggling to adapt to anything... That's the problem. They are struggling to keep things as they are now so they don't have to adapt. Big difference.
This is all about control. The RIAA may say that they're trying to protect the money for artists, but that's BS... plain and simple. They want to have exclusive control over the distribution and use of "their" media. Unfortunately, as Zeroth404 hinted, the RIAA is trying to say that all content is their media... when it's clearly not. They didn't create music; they just gave an outlet for distribution.
And that's fine. Let them be a distribution channel. Just not the only one. Do you know what would happen if my company tried to be the sole provider of insurance? Just look at the fallout microsoft faced.
And as a distribution channel, they would be hands-off once the product was distributed. I don't see BP or Amoco pissing and moaning because I'm "sharing" the gas between a portable gas can and my lawnmower.
Look, I love being cynical... I have a lot of fun with it. I enjoy using it as a means of getting a point across. In my analogy, I wasn't so much being cynical, more sarcastic and hyperbolic. Semantics aside, if the RIAA doesn't like being referred to a Nazis, then they can stop acting like Nazis.
He is of course allowed to transfer music from CDs "that he has bought and owns." - Martin J. Steer
Careful... the RIAA would disagree with you. That's part of the reason behind all of the DRM prgorams that rape your computer.
If the RIAA had it's way, there would be an RIAA agent for every person who listens to music. That agent would be responsible for unlocking the CD case (to which you don't have a key), loading the CD into your player and pressing play. As far as the RIAA is concerned, the only thing we can do is listen to the music... after we've paid for a very limited spectrum of listening, of course. Begs the question tho... how long until there are little yellow stars that say "music listener" that we'll have to wear.
As far as the defense... that's fine. If the lawsuit claim is that the lady uploaded, then yes, the defense may be a good one. If the claim is that she downloaded, the it doesn't matter what kind of uploading Kazaa does on its own.
"You're argument is that the patent office should turn down more patents, and maybe it should, but even in the cases you keep trotting out (Blackberry, Ebay) it hasn't been the patent office has NOT held up the patents."
Not sure where the end of that statement was going, but I got the gist of it. You're making it sound like the issuance of these patents aren't a problem because the get overturned or rescinded later. 'No harm, no foul' kind of thing.
What about all the time and money wasted by the "patent infringers" in defending themselves? Yeah, if Joe Bob over there is denied his suit & claim, he may have to pay the legal fees of the "infringer", but what about the lost time? What about the bad press? What about the fact that, in this case, Mr. Molnick probably wouldn't have the money to pay the legal fees of a long and drawn-out federal case if he loses.
Now, I will agree with the sentiment that "it's the chance Molnick takes". Sure. If he tries to patent something as painfully obvious as "facility for online betting" or "a method of drawing in air and transferring oxygen to the blood" then he needs to be ready to pay the consequences of his actions. Enjoy that barrel, buddy.
But... bottom line is that if the USPTO had just declined this patent in the first place, as it should have done then all of this would be moot and we'd all have a few minutes back in our days from not reading about yet another waste of a lot of people's time.
"What's more, his performance seems to simply mirror the sector. When internet stocks went down, his fund went down; as they've come back up, so has his fund."
::blink blink::...
Wait. Isn't that was mutual funds do? Insn't that the idea of any investing...? even something as diverse as a MF?
Not splitting yer hairs here, Joe, but that's like saying:
"What's more, the passenger's motion seemed to mirror the plane. When the plane went down, the passengers went down. When the plane went up, so did the passengers."
I'm not disputing the fact that blame-shifting should be stopped. Nor am I saying that this lady wasn't a complete fuck-tard for putting an un-lidded cup of coffee between her legs, in a car, in motion. Yeah... freakin' genius here.
All I'm saying is that McDonald's was negligent in their duties regarding safety when they heated their coffee up to the temperature that they did. If it didn't burn Ol' Coffee Crotch over there, it would have burned someone somewhere.
"Sure, I'll grant that it was too hot, but as long as the beverage was in the cup it wasn't an issue, now was it?"
But the coffee and it's container, by design, were not supposed to remain in said container. You're supposed to drink it. If it's that scalding, you could seriously burn your lips and tongue before you realize that it's that hot. You wouldn't have been doing anything wrong... just taking an nice relaxing sip. And, before you say it... drinking a cup of hot coffee at a reasonable temperature should not require any extra due-diligence.
I think it falls upon the Judges hearing the case to make that call. The appeals process will step in if someone feels the call was bad (that's sure to happen in almost every case). If necissary, it can go all the way to the Supreme Court, which can create a final and binding interpretation of the law in question.
We're seeing step-one of this already in this case. A judge has made a legal interpretation, as is his job to do so. It'll go along from here, and eventually lodge itself in as a precident... one way or the other.
No... the point of the lawsuit was the temperature of the coffee.
What is in question here is negligence. There are 4 requirements to be met in order for someone to be negligent:
1)There has to be a "reasonable and customary" duty to perform or a duty to not perform
2)There has to be a breach of that duty
3)There has to be actual damages
4)There has to be proximate cause (which is an unbroken chain of events linking the Breach to the Damages Caused)
1)McDonalds had a "reasonable and customary" responsibility to provide safe products. In this case, a liquid that is not so hot that it can cause life-threatening injuries (if she drank coffee that hot, it could have caused death)
2)McDonald's breached that duty be heating their coffee to a high temperature
3)The coffee temperature, as it was served, directly caused that amount of damage
4)The damages were actual: 2nd & 3rd degree burns to the legs & groin.
As people, we have a responsibility to act "reasonably and prudently". Was it smart to remove the lid? Probably not. Would it be reasonable to assume that if I spilled even "hot" coffee on myself, that I would NOT get 2nd & 3rd degree burns? Yes, that's a reasonable assumption (read that again if it doesn't make sense... my sentence structuring ability is being sapped by work).
Yes the lady removed the lid (not sure how this is a "safety device"... more of a convenience protector). But, she had proceeded under the reasonable assumption that the liquid inside was not hot enough to pose a significant threat.
Again... the lawsuit wasn't about spilling coffee... it wasn't about being burned by hot coffee... it was about the severity and extent of the burns caused by coffee that was heated to an excessive temperature.
As I said, I'm not sure how the 4th applies in a non-criminal case. But, as in the article, the judge seems to agree that the law should protect the citizens in that their property is protected from searches by anyone.
1) The point about searching the computer has nothing to do with a "forensic expert". It's private property. What is in question here is a person's right to not have their property searched or seized without a warrant.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
If it were a criminal case, that computer would not be searchable without a warrant or "probable cause"... on which, admittedly, I'm not too knowledgeable. Since it's not a criminal case (contrary to the RIAA-Nazi's claims), I'm not entirely sure how the 4th applies here. Not a lawyer myself.
But I do wonder how long until the RIAA insists that all music listeners wear little yellow stars for identification purposes... hhmmm...
2) ...and I can't believe I'm the one pointing this out... The McDonalds coffee wasn't about being burned by hot coffee... it was about being burned by hot coffee that was heated to a temperature that exceeded the appropriate safety regulations that govern vended hot beverages. It wasn't "Hurr~ I burned myself! Gimmie money! ~hurr"... it was "Holy crap-sticks! That was waaaayyyy too hot." I've spilled my morning coffee from home on myself many times (meh... I'm clumsy before I've had my coffee... almost a catch 22). I've never required skin-grafts. It's more an annoyance than a hazard.
That lawsuit wasn't as tart-tastic as most people try to argue... it was right for what it was. If she tried to sue because the coffee stained her clothes or startled her... then yes, it would have been idiotic.
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
Re: Re: Re: The Spell Checking Daemon
A prime example of overly-verbose. The Jihad comment, while inaccurate, was a nice touch though. It adds a new dimension to your impression of my 'struggle against misspelling'.
The whole first sentence, when I read it, gave me the image of Mr. Howell from Gilligan's Island. Just snooty and snobbish. I'm sure you were making a point with the tone, so if that was your intention, congratulations.
As to the rest of your post, I'm not going to continue beating this dead horse. Even if I do enjoy the satisfying 'thunk'. So this is it all I have to say on it:
Yes, speed is commonly favored over spelling and grammar... but that does not make it OK. You can say 'it's the way of the times', but I refuse to accept it as 'the way it is' just because others are lazy. I have two choices: go along with something with which I disagree, or fight against it.
Just because others have accepted something is not sufficient reason for me to accept it.
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
Re: Where do we go from here?
Entropy is a noun (see here). I believe the word you were intending is atrophy.
I don't like being an anal-retentive correction-monger, but that was a prime example of incorrectly using a less-than-common word in an 'everyday conversation'.
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
Re: Double-plus-good
Orwellian (good name, by the way), what most of us are trying to illustrate is that putting unnecessary words into a sentence, for the sole purpose of 'sounding smarter' or 'sounding more sophisticated', is a bad thing. It is counterproductive and confusing (intentionally so, sometimes).
I am not advocating the dumbing-down or retardation of our society by making all media use smaller words. I am advocating the proper use of larger words. Using a larger word to make a more colorful point is great. Using larger words for circumlocution is bad.
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
Re: The Spell Checking Daemon
No, the best thing we can do is not give up the fight. I'm not going to just roll over and accept the retardation of our society just because someone is tired of hearing people fight against it.
Sorry man, not going to happen.
Especially since the retardation is coming from laziness. I know most forums don't have a spell-checker built in. But guess what... word processors do. And the magic power of Copy & Paste means that I don't have to type something twice just to have it in a word processor and in a forum. Either type it in the WP first, spell check, then paste to forum; or, if you're feeling adventurous, type it here, copy it to the word processor, spell check it, then paste it here again.
Stop being lazy.
--This message brought to you by the magic of F7 and [CTRL+C] plus [CTRL+V]--
On the post: Big Words Make You Look Dumb?
Just look at Penny Arcade
First, let me say I love Penny Arcade's work.
Now... anyone here who reads the news posts on PA would have notice awhile ago that it seemed Tycho got a word-a-day calendar... and used every single one of those bastards. He uses far, far too many "big words" and comes off looking like a tool.
I love linguistics... hell, I consider myself to be a cunning linguist (hehehe), but I don't want to have to have a damned thesaurus just to read a news post; especially when it's geared for younger audiences.
I know PA has an older fan-base too (like me), but its way over the top with the big words. And I'm not advocating the dumbing-down of communications. But one extreme is as bad as the other.
Tycho, you look like an idiot. Sorry man.
Oh, SKippyboy, the quote is
"Inconceivable!"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Don't want to sound like a hardass or something, but I love that movie. ;)
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
Last bit of True Passion
I agree that ignorance is not an excuse. I can, however, be a reason. Yes, people do need to be held accountable for their ignorance. Hopefully that will help give incentive to people to be more diligent in their actions.
All I'm saying is that there are circumstances where such 'excuses' should be allowable. They may be extremely rare, but to assume that there is never and will never be a reasonable situation where this could be acceptable... that's just foolish.
The trouble, of course, is that it's nearly impossible to make a dividing line between those situations and still have it be "fair". Philosophers have debated this kind of thing for ages... justice and fairness being in the eyes of the beholder, and such. Having people be --gasp-- accountable for their own actions won't fix the problem, but it'll damn sure help. On that, I agree with you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go fight some histamines... Damned Florida pollen.
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
Re: True Passion (some of the
--"I am forever amazed at the debates that follow an article which points out that people will do anything or say anything, even claim ignorance, to get something for nothing. "
You are giving the impression that you assume this person is guilty without knowing all of the facts. Are they claiming ignorance? Yes. Is it possible that they really were ignorant and really didn't engage in illegal file-sharing? YES!
--"The following debate became quite humorous to me, and I apologize if I hit a nerve."
Yup, it's very entertaining... and no, you didn't hit a nerve. I wasn't pissed in my previous post and apologize if I gave that impression. You and I have had some great debates in the past and I don't want either of us unnecessarily on the defensive.
--"The RIAA is not a governing body, it is a trade group."
By their actions, they are claiming all rights to govern the traffic of the media under their "control". I perhaps should have said that they are a self-proclaimed governing body. I know that they are not, legally, an entity that is supposed to have any real power; just influence.
--"They do not care about their people, they care about money."
No argument here. But if you listen to the RIAA propaganda, they are all about protecting the artists. Hitler wasn't really interested in bettering the race, he wanted to get rid of those things that were inferior. The RIAA wants to get rid of all things that challenge their control... which, in their opinion, would make the world a better place for artist.
--"I cannot attack your analogy because it is not an analogy."
Perhaps I used the wrong literary word, but I always hated English in school anyway. I was making a comparison of similarities between the RIAA's actions and the actions taken by the Nazi regime. Was analogy the wrong word? Allusion, perhaps?
--"And you said 'I'm not going to argue what is obviously an opinion.' and proceeded to argue it, 'Let's look at a similar argument from history.'"
I wasn't arguing (what appeared to be) your opinion that, as I said, "anyone who is anti-RIAA is a thief or a cheap-ass who wants to get free music." You've stated that you too are anti-RIAA, so perhaps my initial impression was incorrect. Nice to see that you don't generalize like that.
What I did want to argue is that not all of the arguments against the RIAA are an attempt to claim that file-sharing is legal. Some (perhaps a majority? Dunno) are about how the RIAA is going about their work.
Sorry if this seems a bit slap-dashed, but I'd doing this at work and keep getting interrupted mid-stream and it's really hard to keep my mind on-point.
Meh.
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
Re: True Passion
I can be that sure because I know that I am anti-RIAA and I don't just want free music (I am a cheap-ass though... eh, it's a flaw).
The RIAA, supposedly, wants to protect the copyrighted materials that are under their purview. And that's fine. That's understandable. The thing that I have a problem with is the way in which they are going about this protection and the extent they are going.
Let's look at a similar argument from history. You're immediately going to attack this analogy because it's an extreme one that you'll say doesn't fit the context. It does though, if you look at it.
There was once a governmental leader that wanted to make sure that his people were the best they could be. He wanted to make sure, that in the worlds eyes, his people were the cream of the crop; the best the human race had to offer. In order to do this, he had to do a bit of trimming to remove what was viewed as some slight impurities.
That's a very noble goal to want that for your people. Unfortunately, this leader went to some severe extremes to reach that goal. Killing millions in the name of his 'superior race'. Killing millions who were guilty of nothing more than being impure in his eyes. Got an idea who I'm talking about?
Yeah... I know I've run the RIAA/Nazi thing into the ground, but the similarities are there. We a have a governing body who is "looking out for their people", using strong-arm tactics against weaker people to enforce their will (which is legally-questionable), in whole-sale fashion against anyone this body finds against them. The only difference here is that one group used mass murder and genocide, while the other uses lawsuits for money.
Say what you want Nunya, but I'm just pissed at how the RIAA is doing their stuff here. I do disagree with some of their motivation. But hey, it's a capitalist society that motivates and rewards greed, so who's surprised there?
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
Re: Re: Re:all this Crap
kinda off topic, but it's illegal in my city for women to walk around in public without wearing a belt. I shit you not. it's on the books. So much for "against the law" being the reason to not do something.
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
Re: Re:all this Crap
Having a copy of a file is NOT illegal. You're grouping all things together as horribly as the RIAA does. If I purchased a file (music, program, whatever) and I copy that program for my own backup purposes, it's not illegal. If I purchase a song, rip it MP3 on my desktop (I store 99% of my music this way because I've had CDs stolen before), and then put a copy of that CD on my Laptop;that's not illegal. It's my freakin CD. I can do with that as I please, so long as I do not give others copies of that song without permission from the copyright holders.
"The problem here is one of symantics. They just don't have the words yet to show you you are breaking the law..." - Will anyone ever learn
So let me get this straight- even if there's not a law against it yet, it's already illegal? Does that even make sense to you? "I don't like what you're doing. It should be illegal, so I'll prosecute you even if there isn't a law against what you're doing".
Sorry; until they "have the words to show me that it's illegal"... i.e. write a freakin law against it... it's legal. Being an asshole bastard isn't illegal.
"If I downloaded your car in the middle of the night and just wanted to "share" you wouldn't have so much trouble thinking it was wrong????" -Will anyone ever learn
Apples to oranges here buddy. I own my car (well, the bank does, but I'm workin on it). I don't own the music I purchase; I own the copy I purchased and the media on which it came (the physical CD itself). If you illegally copy music from me, you're not taking my music; you're taking someone else's music. You're just using my copy to gain access to something that you would have otherwise had to pay for.
Sorry to poke holes in your theories here, but come on.
You may want to ask the RIAA to raise your paycheck. I don't think they're paying you enough for this.
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
Sue Kazaa?
Hmm... let me see... No. No. No. and... uh... NO!
Freakin' sue-happy people. If ever there were a need for a targeted virus to be invented...
Look. One: If someone doesn't how to 'properly use a computer' and attempts to use it anyway... that's thier fault, not Kazaa's. Two: Kazaa is not responsible for people trading music (computer-literate or not)... they aren't requiring people to use thier product. That's like saying that Glock should be sued every time some psycho decides to off someone with a Glock.
If I --CHOOSE-- (big word there, hope you caught it)... choose to download music illegally, or to upload illegally, then that's my choice.
No one is responsible for the actions you take and decisions you make but yourself.
There should be a severe penalty for bringing about a frivolous lawsuit. I'm thinkin' death... or rape. or raped to death. yeah, that works.
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
More on the RIAA-Nazis
Yes, it is that bad. By their actions, the RIAA is labeling me (and millions of others) a criminal and a sub-citizen based on broad generalizations and assumptions that are misread from their own propaganda machine. I was actually going to draw an allusion to christianity, but I figured I'd get less flak if I used Nazis... no one likes Nazis.
The RIAA is not struggling to adapt to anything... That's the problem. They are struggling to keep things as they are now so they don't have to adapt. Big difference.
This is all about control. The RIAA may say that they're trying to protect the money for artists, but that's BS... plain and simple. They want to have exclusive control over the distribution and use of "their" media. Unfortunately, as Zeroth404 hinted, the RIAA is trying to say that all content is their media... when it's clearly not. They didn't create music; they just gave an outlet for distribution.
And that's fine. Let them be a distribution channel. Just not the only one. Do you know what would happen if my company tried to be the sole provider of insurance? Just look at the fallout microsoft faced.
And as a distribution channel, they would be hands-off once the product was distributed. I don't see BP or Amoco pissing and moaning because I'm "sharing" the gas between a portable gas can and my lawnmower.
Look, I love being cynical... I have a lot of fun with it. I enjoy using it as a means of getting a point across. In my analogy, I wasn't so much being cynical, more sarcastic and hyperbolic. Semantics aside, if the RIAA doesn't like being referred to a Nazis, then they can stop acting like Nazis.
On the post: Court May Accept File Sharing Defaults As A Defense Against RIAA Suits
Re: Re: Bush Pirate
Careful... the RIAA would disagree with you. That's part of the reason behind all of the DRM prgorams that rape your computer.
If the RIAA had it's way, there would be an RIAA agent for every person who listens to music. That agent would be responsible for unlocking the CD case (to which you don't have a key), loading the CD into your player and pressing play. As far as the RIAA is concerned, the only thing we can do is listen to the music... after we've paid for a very limited spectrum of listening, of course. Begs the question tho... how long until there are little yellow stars that say "music listener" that we'll have to wear.
As far as the defense... that's fine. If the lawsuit claim is that the lady uploaded, then yes, the defense may be a good one. If the claim is that she downloaded, the it doesn't matter what kind of uploading Kazaa does on its own.
On the post: Man Claims Patent Covers All Online Gambling, Sues
Re: Not an issue
Not sure where the end of that statement was going, but I got the gist of it. You're making it sound like the issuance of these patents aren't a problem because the get overturned or rescinded later. 'No harm, no foul' kind of thing.
What about all the time and money wasted by the "patent infringers" in defending themselves? Yeah, if Joe Bob over there is denied his suit & claim, he may have to pay the legal fees of the "infringer", but what about the lost time? What about the bad press? What about the fact that, in this case, Mr. Molnick probably wouldn't have the money to pay the legal fees of a long and drawn-out federal case if he loses.
Now, I will agree with the sentiment that "it's the chance Molnick takes". Sure. If he tries to patent something as painfully obvious as "facility for online betting" or "a method of drawing in air and transferring oxygen to the blood" then he needs to be ready to pay the consequences of his actions. Enjoy that barrel, buddy.
But... bottom line is that if the USPTO had just declined this patent in the first place, as it should have done then all of this would be moot and we'd all have a few minutes back in our days from not reading about yet another waste of a lot of people's time.
On the post: 1999 Is Calling. It Wants Its Mutual Funds Back
uh...
::blink blink::...
Wait. Isn't that was mutual funds do? Insn't that the idea of any investing...? even something as diverse as a MF?
Not splitting yer hairs here, Joe, but that's like saying:
"What's more, the passenger's motion seemed to mirror the plane. When the plane went down, the passengers went down. When the plane went up, so did the passengers."
Meh. You got your point across, so ::shrug::.
On the post: Judge Tells RIAA They Don't Get To Randomly Hunt Through Everyone's Computers
Re: This is simply NOT true, and the mere
All I'm saying is that McDonald's was negligent in their duties regarding safety when they heated their coffee up to the temperature that they did. If it didn't burn Ol' Coffee Crotch over there, it would have burned someone somewhere.
"Sure, I'll grant that it was too hot, but as long as the beverage was in the cup it wasn't an issue, now was it?"
But the coffee and it's container, by design, were not supposed to remain in said container. You're supposed to drink it. If it's that scalding, you could seriously burn your lips and tongue before you realize that it's that hot. You wouldn't have been doing anything wrong... just taking an nice relaxing sip. And, before you say it... drinking a cup of hot coffee at a reasonable temperature should not require any extra due-diligence.
On the post: Judge Tells RIAA They Don't Get To Randomly Hunt Through Everyone's Computers
Re: Re: Re: The constitution doesn't apply to the
We're seeing step-one of this already in this case. A judge has made a legal interpretation, as is his job to do so. It'll go along from here, and eventually lodge itself in as a precident... one way or the other.
On the post: Judge Tells RIAA They Don't Get To Randomly Hunt Through Everyone's Computers
Re: Re: This is simply NOT true, and the mere
No... the point of the lawsuit was the temperature of the coffee.
What is in question here is negligence. There are 4 requirements to be met in order for someone to be negligent:
1)There has to be a "reasonable and customary" duty to perform or a duty to not perform
2)There has to be a breach of that duty
3)There has to be actual damages
4)There has to be proximate cause (which is an unbroken chain of events linking the Breach to the Damages Caused)
1)McDonalds had a "reasonable and customary" responsibility to provide safe products. In this case, a liquid that is not so hot that it can cause life-threatening injuries (if she drank coffee that hot, it could have caused death)
2)McDonald's breached that duty be heating their coffee to a high temperature
3)The coffee temperature, as it was served, directly caused that amount of damage
4)The damages were actual: 2nd & 3rd degree burns to the legs & groin.
As people, we have a responsibility to act "reasonably and prudently". Was it smart to remove the lid? Probably not. Would it be reasonable to assume that if I spilled even "hot" coffee on myself, that I would NOT get 2nd & 3rd degree burns? Yes, that's a reasonable assumption (read that again if it doesn't make sense... my sentence structuring ability is being sapped by work).
Yes the lady removed the lid (not sure how this is a "safety device"... more of a convenience protector). But, she had proceeded under the reasonable assumption that the liquid inside was not hot enough to pose a significant threat.
Again... the lawsuit wasn't about spilling coffee... it wasn't about being burned by hot coffee... it was about the severity and extent of the burns caused by coffee that was heated to an excessive temperature.
On the post: Judge Tells RIAA They Don't Get To Randomly Hunt Through Everyone's Computers
Re: The constitution doesn't apply to the RIAA
On the post: Judge Tells RIAA They Don't Get To Randomly Hunt Through Everyone's Computers
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
If it were a criminal case, that computer would not be searchable without a warrant or "probable cause"... on which, admittedly, I'm not too knowledgeable. Since it's not a criminal case (contrary to the RIAA-Nazi's claims), I'm not entirely sure how the 4th applies here. Not a lawyer myself.
But I do wonder how long until the RIAA insists that all music listeners wear little yellow stars for identification purposes... hhmmm...
2) ...and I can't believe I'm the one pointing this out... The McDonalds coffee wasn't about being burned by hot coffee... it was about being burned by hot coffee that was heated to a temperature that exceeded the appropriate safety regulations that govern vended hot beverages. It wasn't "Hurr~ I burned myself! Gimmie money! ~hurr"... it was "Holy crap-sticks! That was waaaayyyy too hot." I've spilled my morning coffee from home on myself many times (meh... I'm clumsy before I've had my coffee... almost a catch 22). I've never required skin-grafts. It's more an annoyance than a hazard.
That lawsuit wasn't as tart-tastic as most people try to argue... it was right for what it was. If she tried to sue because the coffee stained her clothes or startled her... then yes, it would have been idiotic.
Next >>