Part of the job of an extradition hearing is to determine if there is an actual case for Dotcom to face once he gets to the United States not just the FBI's word that there something there.
Nor is it really up to the FBI to decide. An extradition case is national government to national government which is where, in the end, should this start to hang on the rocks even at high tide where it will start to move forward again.
The mere fact that the FBI is only wanting to release a cherry picked, summary document to the court isn't good. That leads extradition courts and judges to think they don't have an actual case. Not that they're the only ones thinking that.
In discovery in any court you produce what the judge asks/tells you to produce. The FBI knows that. And New Zealand, like many other countries gets their dander up when an American law enforcement agency, particularly one with a reputation as poor as the FBI's refuses to do it.
If the hearing was being held in Canada there's something like a 100% chance that the extradition would have been denied almost the moment that came in. It's called go pull someone else's chain and, by the way, we're independent not your damned colony. Dotcom walks. You ain't got to case.
The Crown attorney is doing his job which, as a part of the New Zealand government was involved in and executed the raid and seizures. You can't dismiss a barrister for doing the job they were assigned to do by the Government nor can the judge remove them from the case. Dotcom's lawyer (barrister) is doing his job as well.
All that said if the only disclosure the New Zealand Government and American government, in this case, want to make is a single cherry picked document which in 99.99999% of extradition requests isn't sufficient evidence to determine if there is a legitimate case for Dotcom to face should he be extradited to the United States.
The court in New Zealand wants more. Particularly as, now, the warrants for the entire operation have been ruled illegal. No court in the United States would do less during an extradition hearing.
In fact, in many cases and if the request had come from any other country, that would be it, case closed, go back home Kim and have a beer. That may be the result anyway if this silliness keeps up.
The FBI is looking more and more as if it doesn't have a legitimate case civil or criminal.
Of course they don't write common law. How dare they! Who said that was their job! String 'em up!
Oh, Alfred the Great. Perhaps stay away from the lynch party cause I like my head on my shoulders where it belongs!
The British Museum and the Old Bailey in London share 6 stories of rulings from Alfred's time to the present day. I suspect the Smithsonian in the United States has a similar resource focusing, of course, on the United States as would the United States Supreme Court.
Still, for believers in activist judges and prehistoric aliens teaching Egyptians how to make pyramids your explanation of an invisible law field works a lot better. Just think of the wonderful TV series and movies that can be made!
What Mike is saying is that the circuit court, to date, has ruled one way in these cases. A ruling, particularly a well written well grounded that disagrees with previous rulings makes it well nigh impossible for appellate courts to refuse to hear them.
He's not asking that the court, in this case, set policy. It's the enforcement of that policy that is in question and that is not the prevue exclusively reserved for the legislature. That and he's asking for clarification of law and enforcement from a higher court which, if anything, is the exclusive prevue of the courts unless and until a legislature decides to act.
It's hard to argue against the constitutionality of patents when they're written into the US Constitution though the details are not.
You're not getting to the laugh test much less qualified to be laughed at yet.
She does sound like a bit of a nutter though, much to my shock, she's ruling on a design, patented no less, so she may have grounds in law to hold up her own ruling.
The case has moved to appeal where it belongs.
I don't know why I'm surprised by the patent on the design. After all this is the United States I'm looking at...the same country that decided software was patentable and people are now trying to patent genomes they acquired by taking blood and skin tests from aboriginal groups in Central and South America. And here I was, under the impression that you still couldn't patent things which occurred naturally.
So, not only can I patent a minor change to the design of my house or garden, if I was living in the States I could probably patent myself in whole in case some biotech firm decided that there was something interesting running around in me that they might like to patent. I want in on that action! So I'll happily license myself to them for an unreasonable fee. :-)
Re: It's not activist judges it's how the system works.
I suppose you could try judge shopping and see what happens. Still, to paraphrase Judge Posner a bit, you can't appeal a judgement you simply don't like appeals have to be on points of law not the outcome.
Appeal of many cases is automatic or nearly so. For example capital punishment convictions and sentences are automatically appealed.
Civil law cases may be appealed if the decision is precedent setting. That's not activist judges that's just how the system has worked for a thousand years or so. In fact that's how the vast majority of what we call civil law came to be, precedent setting rulings. Even where some of it is codified those codes came from the laws that came about from rulings and established long standing precedent.
But you can't just appeal because you don't like the outcome, it has to be on points of law where the judge or judge and jury erred in law coming to their rulings whether the case is a civil or criminal one.
Both patents and copyright had limited duration and application and it can be argued that both were (note the past tense) as first legislated.
Now we have near eternal copyright and patents granted to items that are
(a) obvious -- say the one click
(b) based on prior art -- name me any of 9/10ths of the software patents out there
(c) not reproducible due to the nature in which they are written. Put another way they're trying to patent the rising and setting of the sun if you believe patent trolls.
(d) there is no product (code) backing the claims the patent makes.
(e) like copyright patents are drifting towards a life span close to or near eternity.
A return to the original intention of both with limited monopoly in time (14 years non renewable is sufficient) and scope.
Patent examiners need to be paid salaries not bonuses/incentives to approve patents. The also need to be subject matter experts in the kind of patents they examine or have the right and duty to consult with the same before issuing or denying a patent.
As it is both concepts are being corrupted far beyond their original, laudable, intent to the point where, as people have noted they become an economic disincentive. And, at times, a social disaster.
Courts hate being deceived and lied to. So much that over time they've created a couple of things whoever filed this fake might want to keep in mind.
One, perjury, is, as far as I know, a criminal offense in every country that has inherited the English legal system.
The other, contempt of court, may or may not be depending in how much of a sense of humour the judge may have at that particular moment.
Don't get a judge annoyed after he's had a bad sleep the night before. ;-)
Riches, an obviously disturbed gentleman, may or may not have filed this one. Probably not as the satire is just too good for him to have come up with. That and it's obvious whoever did have been closely following the Carreon Soap Opera.
Not that I hope whoever came up with this gem ends up in jail because it just catches Carreon too, too well.
I wonder if he knew, when he started this, if Charles Carreon realized he'd become the gift that keeps on giving; the example of everything people think and fear of contemptible lawyers and having at least one Web meme bearing his name. Perhaps more before this is all done.
If he was afraid that his reputation was taking a beating before this all started I'm sure we can all agree that it's in tatters now and being used as compost somewhere.
All of it his own doing. Yeah, Charles, your famous. You've had your 10 minutes or so of fame. Now you get to love with infamy and a collection of other less desirable things like you and your wife being considered a few rail cars short of a full load and complete idiots besides. Those sorts of things last years, if not a lifetime. Have fun!
Oh yes, it has. Or at least it was attempted in the negotiations on the Canada-US FTA. The "opaque" transparency surrounding TPP was attempted there until the process started to leak like a sieve. Particularly as sections of that agreement were to apply to water rights.
I'm not at all sure when TPP will start to spring leaks as things go on either. Wikileaks may or may not come back to life but someone else will happily publish the leaks on the Web. Say, perhaps, a Chinese blogger who will be sent some of the "talking points" and proposals which could damage Chinese trade.
The utterly insane part of this is that by doing this the negotiators create opposition to the proposed treaty even at this early stage. I guess they've learned nothing from what happened in Europe yesterday which will put the nail in another horrid treaty called ACTA.
While you and others carry on about corporations being people under the law in the United States, it's that way in many other countries as well.
Corporations are persons under civil and criminal law in Canada as well. Note that I said persons not people. While there are obvious drawbacks to this, on the other hand there are plusses.
Things like you can actually file a lawsuit against a corporation or proprietorship where you can't if they're not recognized as "persons". How do you sue an inanimate object?
How do you charge a corporation and it's directors and/or executives if the corporation itself isn't a person under law? Enron plops to mind as does a recent leak or spew from an Enridge pipeline in the States. They need to be "persons" under law to charge them criminally, too.
As for having their little feelers hurt, like most of the rest of us, too bad. It's part of life. Most of the world, that is the world outside of the United States, doesn't sue other people or persons because they stubbed a toe. :-)
Also keep in mind that the USA was knocked out of first place on the total number of patents applied for and granted for the first time since pre World War One days by both Japan and China.
It's also in the software industry, according to the article in Techcrunch, that patent use has fallen in startups. The Hardware industry is still applying for them like crazy.
But the study shows it's startups who aren't applying for patents. Obviously some people are feeling the incentive to start a business without a patent and don't feel other things are "disincentivizng" them.
I could go into some detail refuting a lot of your arguments but it's pointless as a lot of them are half right.
As for who employes the most people it's small business not larger ones and definitely not megacorporations once one gets past being impressed by those vast global numbers.
However, let's get by one little point. Computers as we now know them were developed during World War 2 in Britain and the United States to (a) codebreak and (b)make the calculations necessary to lay (aim) large guns properly be they field pieces or ship based. As those who developed them were in the employ of the military as part of the total war effort against the Axis powers no one got rich from it. They did make a huge contribution to the defeat of the Axis.
IBM did see the commercial value in one or two of these things post war but not too many more so they stitched together what we call the mainframe which largely did accounting and billing duties.
You are right in saying that most of the (overwhelmingly) men who established how we now communicate over computers and other devices we now take for granted were largely done by visionaries and dreamers. Or by sheer necessity. For example the Roman aqueduct system.
There is that aspect of the 1% and they're very rare. It's not often you trip over a Bill Gates or a Linus Torvalds. I suspect it's this part of the 1% you're referring to.
Then there's the bunch that have inherited wealth that they just sit on, let someone else invest and watch it grow as they lecture the rest of us on the values of free enterprise and unrestricted capitalism. If you recall the ones making those noises the loudest before 2008 were large investment bankers who were playing dice with peoples savings.
They'd forgotten that they were a service industry who, themselves, have never created a thing of enduring value even if, on occasion, they'd loaned the money that made such creations possible. They still haven't got that right. Have a look at what's going on with Barclay's Bank today.
And speaking of value there are people who create things of priceless value every day even if they don't know it. People who tend to their little front gardens which bloom with colour a life this time of year and make the neighbourhood so much better by what they do.
So there's a lot in your post of "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing". Don't worry, that's become all too common these days.
There also seems a lot of, to quote it correctly, of the biblical quote "the love of money is the root of all evil". Wealth, in and of itself creates nothing and employs no one. The wealthy do have something of a duty to those less fortunate than they are. Not in the sense of nobless oblige but more in the sense of helping their neighbours and acting responsibly with their wealth. Certainly not in the sense of class warfare or what Soviet and Chinese style socialism/communism created who had their own wealthy classes.
But the neighbourhood gardener that can bring colour, life, variety and a place where people just look and relax is as valuable as a any captain of industry. The guy across the street who helps cut the lawn without being asked is just as valuable as any inventor or captain of industry. The volunteer coach, the singers in a church or other choir are as valuable and on and on.
Value isn't just money. Try to remember that.
And try to remember that the 1% being protested against were, by and large, in the banking industry whose irresponsibility put our economies where they are today. And some, like Barclays, continue in their irresponsibility.
“Viacom and Disney should do everything in their power to steer viewership toward modes with the best long-term economics, namely traditional TV and emerging forms of TV Everywhere VOD.”
OK, so Mr Consultant comes along and writes the report his employers mostly want to hear then...right at the end as he recommends continuing the stare into the rear view mirror be also adds VOD. Which, in many ways, is what Netflix is. Hulu too if they'd recognize that the border between Canada and the States has never really existed when it comes to broadcast and who cares anyway? (We even get the same ads now!) He may, of course, be referring to an as yet imaginary VOD service for Disney and Viacom only.
As others have asked "how much was he paid for this"?
Even if the EPP got a case of the parliamentary stupids and abstained en masse or just walked out the vote is overwhelming.
I can't see the Commission trying to bring it back now, though their arrogance in this process is enough to convince me that they can't recognize road kill when they see it. Road kill as in run over by a dozen D-9 Caterpillars. About as subtle too.
Good on 'em. The trip from rubber stamp to actual parliament is hard but it seems the MEPs have taken up the cudgel in a big, big way.
Who needs to worry about extraditing O'Dwyer to a foreign land when, by this ruling, England, is clearly now the 51st State of the Union. They just have to figure out how to get an odd number of stars on the US flag.
True, but the central question is that do songbirds use song as a way to relax and to enjoy another bird's song or is it still a matter of communication no matter how beautiful it sounds to our ears. I'm not sure that's been answered yet.
We humans use music for it's own sake. If it ever was something central to our survival that's long past. Now we sing, dance, stomp, play and listen to music just because. For a number of us, in the right time and place, it may be the best antidepressant there is, as our minds turn to the music everything else gets crowded out.
Not to take a thing from birds. Most of their songs are for communication. We don't know how much is for enjoyment. Personally I don't care. I love them just the same. :)
On the post: FBI Continues To Insist There's No Reason For Kim Dotcom To Be Able To See The Evidence Against Him
Re:
Part of the job of an extradition hearing is to determine if there is an actual case for Dotcom to face once he gets to the United States not just the FBI's word that there something there.
Nor is it really up to the FBI to decide. An extradition case is national government to national government which is where, in the end, should this start to hang on the rocks even at high tide where it will start to move forward again.
The mere fact that the FBI is only wanting to release a cherry picked, summary document to the court isn't good. That leads extradition courts and judges to think they don't have an actual case. Not that they're the only ones thinking that.
In discovery in any court you produce what the judge asks/tells you to produce. The FBI knows that. And New Zealand, like many other countries gets their dander up when an American law enforcement agency, particularly one with a reputation as poor as the FBI's refuses to do it.
If the hearing was being held in Canada there's something like a 100% chance that the extradition would have been denied almost the moment that came in. It's called go pull someone else's chain and, by the way, we're independent not your damned colony. Dotcom walks. You ain't got to case.
On the post: FBI Continues To Insist There's No Reason For Kim Dotcom To Be Able To See The Evidence Against Him
Re: It's bad, but not that bad, oh yes it is.
All that said if the only disclosure the New Zealand Government and American government, in this case, want to make is a single cherry picked document which in 99.99999% of extradition requests isn't sufficient evidence to determine if there is a legitimate case for Dotcom to face should he be extradited to the United States.
The court in New Zealand wants more. Particularly as, now, the warrants for the entire operation have been ruled illegal. No court in the United States would do less during an extradition hearing.
In fact, in many cases and if the request had come from any other country, that would be it, case closed, go back home Kim and have a beer. That may be the result anyway if this silliness keeps up.
The FBI is looking more and more as if it doesn't have a legitimate case civil or criminal.
On the post: Judge Posner: Do Most Industries Even Need Patents?
Re: Re:
The fact that he's neither is why his ruling and subsequent interview are getting so much attention.
BTW, he was appointed by Ronald Reagan no big fan of "activist" judges or nutballs.
On the post: Judge Posner: Do Most Industries Even Need Patents?
Re: Re:
Oh, Alfred the Great. Perhaps stay away from the lynch party cause I like my head on my shoulders where it belongs!
The British Museum and the Old Bailey in London share 6 stories of rulings from Alfred's time to the present day. I suspect the Smithsonian in the United States has a similar resource focusing, of course, on the United States as would the United States Supreme Court.
Still, for believers in activist judges and prehistoric aliens teaching Egyptians how to make pyramids your explanation of an invisible law field works a lot better. Just think of the wonderful TV series and movies that can be made!
On the post: Judge Posner: Do Most Industries Even Need Patents?
Re:
He's not asking that the court, in this case, set policy. It's the enforcement of that policy that is in question and that is not the prevue exclusively reserved for the legislature. That and he's asking for clarification of law and enforcement from a higher court which, if anything, is the exclusive prevue of the courts unless and until a legislature decides to act.
It's hard to argue against the constitutionality of patents when they're written into the US Constitution though the details are not.
You're not getting to the laugh test much less qualified to be laughed at yet.
On the post: Judge Posner: Do Most Industries Even Need Patents?
Re: Re:
The case has moved to appeal where it belongs.
I don't know why I'm surprised by the patent on the design. After all this is the United States I'm looking at...the same country that decided software was patentable and people are now trying to patent genomes they acquired by taking blood and skin tests from aboriginal groups in Central and South America. And here I was, under the impression that you still couldn't patent things which occurred naturally.
So, not only can I patent a minor change to the design of my house or garden, if I was living in the States I could probably patent myself in whole in case some biotech firm decided that there was something interesting running around in me that they might like to patent. I want in on that action! So I'll happily license myself to them for an unreasonable fee. :-)
PARA-DICE!!!!
hehehe
On the post: Judge Posner: Do Most Industries Even Need Patents?
Re: It's not activist judges it's how the system works.
Appeal of many cases is automatic or nearly so. For example capital punishment convictions and sentences are automatically appealed.
Civil law cases may be appealed if the decision is precedent setting. That's not activist judges that's just how the system has worked for a thousand years or so. In fact that's how the vast majority of what we call civil law came to be, precedent setting rulings. Even where some of it is codified those codes came from the laws that came about from rulings and established long standing precedent.
But you can't just appeal because you don't like the outcome, it has to be on points of law where the judge or judge and jury erred in law coming to their rulings whether the case is a civil or criminal one.
On the post: Judge Posner: Do Most Industries Even Need Patents?
Re: Re: Re:
Now we have near eternal copyright and patents granted to items that are
(a) obvious -- say the one click
(b) based on prior art -- name me any of 9/10ths of the software patents out there
(c) not reproducible due to the nature in which they are written. Put another way they're trying to patent the rising and setting of the sun if you believe patent trolls.
(d) there is no product (code) backing the claims the patent makes.
(e) like copyright patents are drifting towards a life span close to or near eternity.
A return to the original intention of both with limited monopoly in time (14 years non renewable is sufficient) and scope.
Patent examiners need to be paid salaries not bonuses/incentives to approve patents. The also need to be subject matter experts in the kind of patents they examine or have the right and duty to consult with the same before issuing or denying a patent.
As it is both concepts are being corrupted far beyond their original, laudable, intent to the point where, as people have noted they become an economic disincentive. And, at times, a social disaster.
On the post: Charles Carreon Saga Takes A Turn For The Bizarre, With Apparently Fake Matthew Inman Lawsuit Filed Against Carreon
Perjury anyone?
One, perjury, is, as far as I know, a criminal offense in every country that has inherited the English legal system.
The other, contempt of court, may or may not be depending in how much of a sense of humour the judge may have at that particular moment.
Don't get a judge annoyed after he's had a bad sleep the night before. ;-)
Riches, an obviously disturbed gentleman, may or may not have filed this one. Probably not as the satire is just too good for him to have come up with. That and it's obvious whoever did have been closely following the Carreon Soap Opera.
Not that I hope whoever came up with this gem ends up in jail because it just catches Carreon too, too well.
I wonder if he knew, when he started this, if Charles Carreon realized he'd become the gift that keeps on giving; the example of everything people think and fear of contemptible lawyers and having at least one Web meme bearing his name. Perhaps more before this is all done.
If he was afraid that his reputation was taking a beating before this all started I'm sure we can all agree that it's in tatters now and being used as compost somewhere.
All of it his own doing. Yeah, Charles, your famous. You've had your 10 minutes or so of fame. Now you get to love with infamy and a collection of other less desirable things like you and your wife being considered a few rail cars short of a full load and complete idiots besides. Those sorts of things last years, if not a lifetime. Have fun!
On the post: Still Plenty To Be Concerned About With TPP
Re: Re:
I'm not at all sure when TPP will start to spring leaks as things go on either. Wikileaks may or may not come back to life but someone else will happily publish the leaks on the Web. Say, perhaps, a Chinese blogger who will be sent some of the "talking points" and proposals which could damage Chinese trade.
The utterly insane part of this is that by doing this the negotiators create opposition to the proposed treaty even at this early stage. I guess they've learned nothing from what happened in Europe yesterday which will put the nail in another horrid treaty called ACTA.
On the post: Twitter's Transparency Report Reveals Takedown And Information Requests
Good on Twitter!
On the post: Twitter's Transparency Report Reveals Takedown And Information Requests
Re: Re:
Corporations are persons under civil and criminal law in Canada as well. Note that I said persons not people. While there are obvious drawbacks to this, on the other hand there are plusses.
Things like you can actually file a lawsuit against a corporation or proprietorship where you can't if they're not recognized as "persons". How do you sue an inanimate object?
How do you charge a corporation and it's directors and/or executives if the corporation itself isn't a person under law? Enron plops to mind as does a recent leak or spew from an Enridge pipeline in the States. They need to be "persons" under law to charge them criminally, too.
As for having their little feelers hurt, like most of the rest of us, too bad. It's part of life. Most of the world, that is the world outside of the United States, doesn't sue other people or persons because they stubbed a toe. :-)
On the post: European Parliament Declares Its Independence From The European Commission With A Massive Rejection Of ACTA. Now What?
Re: Now if only Canada had the balls to do the same...
Oh, and I hope you didn't expect anything better from the former natural governing party -- The Liberals. They did this sort of thing all the time.
Maple flavoured taco anyone?
On the post: New Evidence Shows That Patents Matter Less And Less For Startups
Re: False
It's also in the software industry, according to the article in Techcrunch, that patent use has fallen in startups. The Hardware industry is still applying for them like crazy.
On the post: New Evidence Shows That Patents Matter Less And Less For Startups
Re: Patents matter
On the post: PIPA Author Senator Leahy Gets His Reward: A Part In 'The Dark Knight Rises'
Re: Re:
As for who employes the most people it's small business not larger ones and definitely not megacorporations once one gets past being impressed by those vast global numbers.
However, let's get by one little point. Computers as we now know them were developed during World War 2 in Britain and the United States to (a) codebreak and (b)make the calculations necessary to lay (aim) large guns properly be they field pieces or ship based. As those who developed them were in the employ of the military as part of the total war effort against the Axis powers no one got rich from it. They did make a huge contribution to the defeat of the Axis.
IBM did see the commercial value in one or two of these things post war but not too many more so they stitched together what we call the mainframe which largely did accounting and billing duties.
You are right in saying that most of the (overwhelmingly) men who established how we now communicate over computers and other devices we now take for granted were largely done by visionaries and dreamers. Or by sheer necessity. For example the Roman aqueduct system.
There is that aspect of the 1% and they're very rare. It's not often you trip over a Bill Gates or a Linus Torvalds. I suspect it's this part of the 1% you're referring to.
Then there's the bunch that have inherited wealth that they just sit on, let someone else invest and watch it grow as they lecture the rest of us on the values of free enterprise and unrestricted capitalism. If you recall the ones making those noises the loudest before 2008 were large investment bankers who were playing dice with peoples savings.
They'd forgotten that they were a service industry who, themselves, have never created a thing of enduring value even if, on occasion, they'd loaned the money that made such creations possible. They still haven't got that right. Have a look at what's going on with Barclay's Bank today.
And speaking of value there are people who create things of priceless value every day even if they don't know it. People who tend to their little front gardens which bloom with colour a life this time of year and make the neighbourhood so much better by what they do.
So there's a lot in your post of "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing". Don't worry, that's become all too common these days.
There also seems a lot of, to quote it correctly, of the biblical quote "the love of money is the root of all evil". Wealth, in and of itself creates nothing and employs no one. The wealthy do have something of a duty to those less fortunate than they are. Not in the sense of nobless oblige but more in the sense of helping their neighbours and acting responsibly with their wealth. Certainly not in the sense of class warfare or what Soviet and Chinese style socialism/communism created who had their own wealthy classes.
But the neighbourhood gardener that can bring colour, life, variety and a place where people just look and relax is as valuable as a any captain of industry. The guy across the street who helps cut the lawn without being asked is just as valuable as any inventor or captain of industry. The volunteer coach, the singers in a church or other choir are as valuable and on and on.
Value isn't just money. Try to remember that.
And try to remember that the 1% being protested against were, by and large, in the banking industry whose irresponsibility put our economies where they are today. And some, like Barclays, continue in their irresponsibility.
On the post: TV Analyst: Kids Love Netflix, And Disney Should Break Them Of That Nasty Habit
Circular argument?
OK, so Mr Consultant comes along and writes the report his employers mostly want to hear then...right at the end as he recommends continuing the stare into the rear view mirror be also adds VOD. Which, in many ways, is what Netflix is. Hulu too if they'd recognize that the border between Canada and the States has never really existed when it comes to broadcast and who cares anyway? (We even get the same ads now!) He may, of course, be referring to an as yet imaginary VOD service for Disney and Viacom only.
As others have asked "how much was he paid for this"?
On the post: European Parliament Declares Its Independence From The European Commission With A Massive Rejection Of ACTA. Now What?
Nothing at all subtle about that vote
I can't see the Commission trying to bring it back now, though their arrogance in this process is enough to convince me that they can't recognize road kill when they see it. Road kill as in run over by a dozen D-9 Caterpillars. About as subtle too.
Good on 'em. The trip from rubber stamp to actual parliament is hard but it seems the MEPs have taken up the cudgel in a big, big way.
On the post: Jimmy Wales Confident That UK Gov't Won't Ignore 200,000+ Signatures Against O'Dwyer Extradition
Re: Re:
On the post: Another Reason The Music Industry Won't Be Coming Back -- The History Of Music Is More About Participation Than Compensation
Re: Re: Re:
We humans use music for it's own sake. If it ever was something central to our survival that's long past. Now we sing, dance, stomp, play and listen to music just because. For a number of us, in the right time and place, it may be the best antidepressant there is, as our minds turn to the music everything else gets crowded out.
Not to take a thing from birds. Most of their songs are for communication. We don't know how much is for enjoyment. Personally I don't care. I love them just the same. :)
Next >>