1. Oversight is a necessity, I agree, but it doesn't necessarily need to be the government. Independent privately-owned companies who add their stamp of approval to products in such a manner already exist. The difference is, if one of these companies is later found to be dishonest, you can stop looking for their stamp and go elsewhere. When the FDA is corrupt, you're stuck.
2. FDA regulation and oversight saves lives, it's true. It also costs lives. Every time the FDA slows down or prohibits the entry of a product onto the market, they are potentially costing the lives of people who could have been saved by that product in the meantime. To validate the existence of the FDA on the basis of saving lives, you'd have to prove that their control saves more lives than it costs, and that their control is better than the free market situation in #1 above. Neither of those is easy to prove one way or the other.
The bottom line for me, however, is that it should be my choice to seek out products not approved by the government, if I choose to take that risk. If I'm dying of terminal cancer, and the pharma industry has created a drug that cures cancer %10 of the time and kills the patient outright 90% of the time, I should be able to buy that product regardless of the FDA's opinion on the matter.
Looks like it was perhaps just a difference of interpretation.
Much like if I saw the aforementioned buffet advertising "Unlimited Food!", I would assume that "unlimited" was in reference to the available quantity of food and not that they necessarily offered an "unlimited" selection of food types.
Hmm, perhaps we are reading it two different ways.
I read "unlimited" in terms of the quantity of data allowed, but perhaps some people such as yourself read "unlimited" in terms of scope.
Under my reading, the limited data types are available in unlimited quantity, and thus the advertisement is misleading only in the definition of "data".
Under your reading, however, I can see how "unlimited" would be seen as misleading, since the type of data allowed is, in fact, quite limited.
Again "the data types specified" which do not include the internet.
Streaming audio/video is not "the internet". As I read the fine print, they say you may not access the internet except through their apps. If they include no apps to access the internet at all, then I agree that "data" is misleading, since that basically eliminates all data entirely under any definition.
Go ahead Chris, continue to be a shill for the lowest common denominator of corporate practice. It seems to suite you well.
How many times must I say it? Wal-Mart should have been more up front about their definitions. You keep trying to push the "Wal-mart Defender" angle, and I'm starting to think that perhaps I'm just feeding a troll . . .
I'm not sure why you are accusing me of "defending Wal-Mart's practices". I've already said that they should have been more up front about their definitions.
What it DOES NOT do however, is provide a service as advertised.
It does, under the definitions used.
At a certain point a word loses it's meaning, and it truely strains credibility to define "unlimited" as is done with the Walmart plan.
"Unlimited" seems to describe the plan fairly accurately regarding the types of data specified. It doesn't seem to be stretching the meaning of the word at all.
More like the menu specifies in the fine print that:
1. The all-you-can-eat offer applies only to items located on the buffet table.
2. Egg rolls are are specifically not provided on that buffet table.
3. You may not at any time bring in your own buffet table, especially for the purpose of making egg rolls available on it.
(This analogy is becoming strained. But you get the picture .)
That doesn't really follow. Definitions are important.
If they define "data" in a particular manner, and then say that such data is available to you in an unlimited quantity, then what they said is absolutely true.
Burying their definition of "data" deep inside contract legalese is pretty crappy, though.
From what I can see, the "unlimited" part is true, it's just that they have defined "data" as "data that comes through our limited application offerings, which won't include streaming audio or video".
That definition of "data" should absolutely be spelled out more plainly, but overall it wasn't as misleading as I was expecting.
"Federal researchers who examined 8,387 hybrid and 559,703 internal combustion engine vehicle crashes in 12 states, including Florida, discovered the incidents commonly occurred at low speeds, when the sound difference between a hybrid and traditional car engine is the greatest. But accident rates with pedestrians and bicyclists were almost the same for both engine styles when the autos were going straight.
None of the accidents studied were fatal."
This is clearly an area that legislators should get involved in immediately. Much time, effort, and taxpayer money must be spent now if we are to start saving these zero lives as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, most news stories and such don't make the distinction between uploaders and downloaders, because downloaders are often caught by their uploading (as Mike pointed out).
Since the only practical way for a group such as the RIAA to catch a person who only downloads copyrighted materials is to offer that material up themselves and see who connects (as the original posting is about), I was curious to see if any of these cases had actually been taken to court successfully.
I appreciate the sarcastic and unhelpful response to my question, though. Thanks.
1) Crack is illegal to possess. At all.
2) You are allowed to possess copyrighted material, as long as the rights holder has allowed you to.
If the rights holder is the one giving files to you, it's hard to see how that violates copyright law. Their computer is literally sending the content to your computer.
If I take a picture (and therefore own the copyright), make a copy, and send it to you in the mail, can I wait outside your house with the police and have them raid it when you bring your mail in?
After all, just because I've sent you my picture doesn't mean you have the authorization to look at it. Filthy criminal.
Question: Is it actually against the law to download copyrighted materials? I was under the impression that it was only against the law to offer unauthorized copyrighted content for download, which is why the RIAA goes after uploaders and not downloaders.
If I print out a stack of copyrighted photos and stand on a street corner handing them out to passers-by, the copyright owner would certainly have a case against me, but not necessarily the people that I gave photos to.
Have there been any cases of these companies actually taking downloaders to court if they refuse to pay?
It's more like you went to the homepage of an artist you admired, and on his Downloads page were high-res copies of all his famous paintings, so you download some of your favorites.
Then a couple weeks later you get a letter from him demanding several thousand dollars for your "infringement".
"It's an important thing to learn, you may take a picture and own the rights to that picture, but you don't always have license to the things that appear in the picture. Thus, locations, events, performers, etc - you may not have the right to distribute those images in public without their permission."
Have anything to back that up? Because I think you're very wrong.
Trademark is based on preventing people from (A) Passing their goods off as someone else's and (B) implying endorsement by a particular person, corporation, or brand that has not actually provided an endorsement.
It is absolutely not meant to be used to prevent anyone from talking about or referencing a particular trademarked item (i.e. the "You can't talk bad about my business because the name of my business is trademarked and I don't give you permission to use it." garbage we see businesses trying to get away with today).
If I post a picture I took on the internet and there happens to be a McDonald's in the background, McDonalds's can't demand that I take it down (well, they can demand it, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll lose in court) unless they can prove that I'm using their trademark in a fraudulent manner.
If companies want to prevent people from taking and distributing pictures of their events, they can put it in their Terms of Service or in some other contract language, but that only applies to people who have agreed to said contract (e.g. a ticket purchaser), and it isn't a copyright violation if those terms are broken, it's a breach of contract.
On the post: As The FTC Goes After Bloggers, Doctors Making Millions Promoting Drugs With Little Oversight
Re: Re:
1. Oversight is a necessity, I agree, but it doesn't necessarily need to be the government. Independent privately-owned companies who add their stamp of approval to products in such a manner already exist. The difference is, if one of these companies is later found to be dishonest, you can stop looking for their stamp and go elsewhere. When the FDA is corrupt, you're stuck.
2. FDA regulation and oversight saves lives, it's true. It also costs lives. Every time the FDA slows down or prohibits the entry of a product onto the market, they are potentially costing the lives of people who could have been saved by that product in the meantime. To validate the existence of the FDA on the basis of saving lives, you'd have to prove that their control saves more lives than it costs, and that their control is better than the free market situation in #1 above. Neither of those is easy to prove one way or the other.
The bottom line for me, however, is that it should be my choice to seek out products not approved by the government, if I choose to take that risk. If I'm dying of terminal cancer, and the pharma industry has created a drug that cures cancer %10 of the time and kills the patient outright 90% of the time, I should be able to buy that product regardless of the FDA's opinion on the matter.
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
Re:
Much like if I saw the aforementioned buffet advertising "Unlimited Food!", I would assume that "unlimited" was in reference to the available quantity of food and not that they necessarily offered an "unlimited" selection of food types.
Anyway, mystery solved.
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
Re: Re: Re:
I read "unlimited" in terms of the quantity of data allowed, but perhaps some people such as yourself read "unlimited" in terms of scope.
Under my reading, the limited data types are available in unlimited quantity, and thus the advertisement is misleading only in the definition of "data".
Under your reading, however, I can see how "unlimited" would be seen as misleading, since the type of data allowed is, in fact, quite limited.
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
Re: Re:
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
Re:
Streaming audio/video is not "the internet". As I read the fine print, they say you may not access the internet except through their apps. If they include no apps to access the internet at all, then I agree that "data" is misleading, since that basically eliminates all data entirely under any definition.
Go ahead Chris, continue to be a shill for the lowest common denominator of corporate practice. It seems to suite you well.
How many times must I say it? Wal-Mart should have been more up front about their definitions. You keep trying to push the "Wal-mart Defender" angle, and I'm starting to think that perhaps I'm just feeding a troll . . .
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
Re:
I'm not sure why you are accusing me of "defending Wal-Mart's practices". I've already said that they should have been more up front about their definitions.
What it DOES NOT do however, is provide a service as advertised.
It does, under the definitions used.
At a certain point a word loses it's meaning, and it truely strains credibility to define "unlimited" as is done with the Walmart plan.
"Unlimited" seems to describe the plan fairly accurately regarding the types of data specified. It doesn't seem to be stretching the meaning of the word at all.
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
Re: Re: Re:
1. The all-you-can-eat offer applies only to items located on the buffet table.
2. Egg rolls are are specifically not provided on that buffet table.
3. You may not at any time bring in your own buffet table, especially for the purpose of making egg rolls available on it.
(This analogy is becoming strained. But you get the picture .)
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
Re:
If they define "data" in a particular manner, and then say that such data is available to you in an unlimited quantity, then what they said is absolutely true.
Burying their definition of "data" deep inside contract legalese is pretty crappy, though.
On the post: Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited
That definition of "data" should absolutely be spelled out more plainly, but overall it wasn't as misleading as I was expecting.
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
"Federal researchers who examined 8,387 hybrid and 559,703 internal combustion engine vehicle crashes in 12 states, including Florida, discovered the incidents commonly occurred at low speeds, when the sound difference between a hybrid and traditional car engine is the greatest. But accident rates with pedestrians and bicyclists were almost the same for both engine styles when the autos were going straight.
None of the accidents studied were fatal."
This is clearly an area that legislators should get involved in immediately. Much time, effort, and taxpayer money must be spent now if we are to start saving these zero lives as soon as possible.
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
Next Up:
"Trend towards smaller cars causes more accidents for deaf pedestrians. Cars now required to flash neon lights from all available surfaces."
Loud horns and neon lights. Our cars are going to look like something out of Close Encounters . . .
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since the only practical way for a group such as the RIAA to catch a person who only downloads copyrighted materials is to offer that material up themselves and see who connects (as the original posting is about), I was curious to see if any of these cases had actually been taken to court successfully.
I appreciate the sarcastic and unhelpful response to my question, though. Thanks.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re:
Have there been any cases of these companies suing people who only downloaded?
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
So according to your logic, even if I don't print it out, I'm an infringer just for going to your web page and you can demand money from me, yes?
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
1) Crack is illegal to possess. At all.
2) You are allowed to possess copyrighted material, as long as the rights holder has allowed you to.
If the rights holder is the one giving files to you, it's hard to see how that violates copyright law. Their computer is literally sending the content to your computer.
If I take a picture (and therefore own the copyright), make a copy, and send it to you in the mail, can I wait outside your house with the police and have them raid it when you bring your mail in?
After all, just because I've sent you my picture doesn't mean you have the authorization to look at it. Filthy criminal.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
If I print out a stack of copyrighted photos and stand on a street corner handing them out to passers-by, the copyright owner would certainly have a case against me, but not necessarily the people that I gave photos to.
Have there been any cases of these companies actually taking downloaders to court if they refuse to pay?
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
It's more like you went to the homepage of an artist you admired, and on his Downloads page were high-res copies of all his famous paintings, so you download some of your favorites.
Then a couple weeks later you get a letter from him demanding several thousand dollars for your "infringement".
On the post: Go To The Olympics? Take Photos? Put Them On Flickr? Await Olympic Committee Legal Threat Letter
Re: Re: Re:
Have anything to back that up? Because I think you're very wrong.
Trademark is based on preventing people from (A) Passing their goods off as someone else's and (B) implying endorsement by a particular person, corporation, or brand that has not actually provided an endorsement.
It is absolutely not meant to be used to prevent anyone from talking about or referencing a particular trademarked item (i.e. the "You can't talk bad about my business because the name of my business is trademarked and I don't give you permission to use it." garbage we see businesses trying to get away with today).
If I post a picture I took on the internet and there happens to be a McDonald's in the background, McDonalds's can't demand that I take it down (well, they can demand it, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll lose in court) unless they can prove that I'm using their trademark in a fraudulent manner.
If companies want to prevent people from taking and distributing pictures of their events, they can put it in their Terms of Service or in some other contract language, but that only applies to people who have agreed to said contract (e.g. a ticket purchaser), and it isn't a copyright violation if those terms are broken, it's a breach of contract.
On the post: Go To The Olympics? Take Photos? Put Them On Flickr? Await Olympic Committee Legal Threat Letter
Re: Re: Re:
If a Google Maps satellite takes a picture of my backyard barbecue from space, can I send out my lawyers to protect my "eventright"?
Next >>