As others have stated, gas taxes are for road maintenance, not pollution. As to the suggestion that gas guzzling vehicles get taxed higher, they already do. They use more gas, resulting in higher taxes.
Citigroup taking control of EMI may be the best thing that could have happened to the recorded music industry. The longer it takes to sell them, the better it's likely to be.
Citigroup's only interest in the company is the bottom line. High handed rhetoric about the evil pirates and feel good proclamations about the label's supposed moral high ground aren't going to impress them. As the old saying goes, money talks and bullshit walks.
If they manage to sell EMI relatively soon all this could go away since the only likely buyers are other labels or people blinded by a delusion of being a 20th century label mogul. If that doesn't happen, we could be looking back in 5 years and saying Citigroup's takeover was what forced all the label executives to get off their soapboxes and make some damn money.
The discussion about whether Wikileaks should be considered "the press" is entirely ridiculous. The press, as referenced in the US Constitution, isn't limited to 20th century media organizations. In fact, if we limit it to that definition we also have to conclude that there was no press when the Constitution was written. Since it's specifically referenced in the 1st Amendment we can safely say that's incorrect.
The same definition of the press which would exclude Wikileaks from 1st Amendment protection would likewise exclude Benjamin Franklin. His publications had more in common with blogs and issue advocacy websites than modern newspapers. That, in and of itself, tells me it's a faulty definition. What freedom of the press is supposed to mean is freedom of publication. It refers not to a privileged group of people and organizations, but literally to a printing press, which was synonymous with publication when the US Constitution was written.
By extension, any prosecution of Julian Assange for assisting in leaking secret information while allowing newspapers, television broadcasters, and the like to publish classified information they've collected by interviewing government officials without similar action amounts to granting special legal status to The Press which was never intended by the Founding Fathers.
Whether the government has the right to take action over the publication of a particular state secret is something we should certainly discuss and debate. But any answer which relies on whether it was a media outlet or journalist who did the publishing has no legitimate constitutional basis. Likewise, if it was a crime for Wikileaks to assist in leaking US government secrets, it's ridiculous to say mainstream media outlets shouldn't be prosecuted for convincing government officials to leak other secrets.
Sadly, it's primarily The Press themselves I blame for our modern misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. More than anyone else, they are responsible for the myth that a handful of words in the middle of an amendment enumerating the rights of the people are actually meant only to apply to them, and not to the public at large. They are the first to declare that an individual who isn't part of their fraternity isn't afforded the same protection they enjoy under the 1st Amendment and the last to criticize journalist shield laws which apply only to them. The fact is, there are no rights of The Press enumerated in the Constitution. Only rights of the people which also extend to The Press.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
Don't know if they should? Would you accept the same level of "proof" as acceptable for non-computer crimes. I'll go back to my earlier example. If someone known to be carrying illegal drugs is seen entering your house, should that be grounds for a search warrant? Because that's basically the standard we're talking about. A modem is nothing more than an entry point to your house. It's the front door for data. And just like the presence of a drug dealer in your house won't get you arrested for buying drugs, the presence of data traveling through your modem shouldn't be grounds for accusing you of downloading kiddie porn.
As to securing routers, as Mike already pointed out, there are legitimate reasons for leaving them unsecured. There is no requirement not to, nor is there a legal doctrine which makes you responsible for the activities of people who use your unsecured connection.
On one hand, you're correct that the headline is a bit misleading. But you're also over simplifying. The raid wasn't just the result of the open network. But it also wasn't just the result of an illegal download.
It was also caused by law enforcement's failure to properly investigate. If you're not aware that unsecured (or as good as unsecured) wireless networks are common place, you don't know enough to be conducting this sort of investigation. Failing to look into such a possibility before making accusations this serious is irresponsible regardless of whether a SWAT team is involved or not. It's networking 101.
Except that it's not like finding pot growing on someone's property. It's more like witnessing a drug dealer known to be carrying pot enter a house and then raiding that house after he leaves.
Re: Re: Re: Abdication or responsibility and victim mentality
>my responsibility is to myself and my family first.
Where did you get the idea they did it to protect Walmart?
>We can't all just take the law into our own hands.
If someone is threatening to shoot you, yes you can. It's called self defense, and just as the name implies it's something you do yourself. In fact there are lots of times it's completely acceptable to take the law into your own hands. Just because something is "the law" doesn't automatically mean only law enforcement can deal with it, or even that its law enforcement's responsibility at all.
>We have law enforcement for a reason.
Yes. And that reason is to catch people after they've broken the law. Although it's part of a police officer's job to stop a crime in progress when they happen across it, almost the entirety of their job is to catch people after a crime has been committed.
Furthermore, companies like Walmart don't forbid employees from stopping a robbery for the safety of employees or customers. It's to protect them from lawsuits when an employee tries to stop a crime and something goes wrong. While I suspect the odds of someone getting hurt are probably lower if you just hand over the money, if I'm the one facing that risk I'll make the decision for myself. Playing the averages is a pretty sure bet when its someone else's life being put at risk. When it's your own, you have to decide for yourself. Saying there's a single "best" way to react, regardless of circumstances, is simply ignorant.
According to the article, the employees felt they didn't have a choice. To say they were wrong without being in their place (or even bothering to educate yourself on any of the specifics apparently) is both ignorant and arrogant. In fact they appear to be saying they did it for exactly the reason you yourself say they shouldn't have. The difference is, if they make the wrong call they pay the price. If you're wrong about their situation, you don't. And neither do the corporate attorneys responsible for setting the policy that got them fired.
As you said yourself, their responsibility was to look out for themselves, not Walmart. Which means if they felt their chances of being killed were better if they jumped him, that's exactly what they should have done. And in fact that appears to be exactly what happened.
There are many circumstances under which attempting to disarm a criminal would be reasonable grounds for firing. This doesn't appear to fit into that category.
Why? Did they seize some child molesters? Because all I read was about domain names and I'm pretty sure no child has ever been assaulted by a web address.
Sony is the only company that owns a major studio, a major record label, and a major consumer electronics company which puts significant emphasis on patents as part of their business model, including owning a larger share of the Blu-ray patent pool than anyone besides Panasonic. Not to mention the fact they're on the other side of a bunch of the content deals the NCTA mentions. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe they're trying to undermine the IP they consider to be basically the core of the entire company? That's like claiming Intel is trying to devalue microprocessors or accusing Toyota of trying to destroy the new car market.
This basically reminds me of the strategy Bob Ross used with his show, "Joy Of Painting." He gave away the show to public television stations and made most of his money selling the supplies go with them.
In a word, yes. The first sale doctrine is a legal principle based derived from a cornerstone of modern democracy (private property ownership). The business models which are failing are side effects of the limitations inherent in outdated technology. The validity of the legal principle hasn't changed. The limitations of technology clearly have.
I will say I may be misunderstanding what Billboard meant by "all digital rights," but they're wording seems to suggest they are also taking over more than songwriting related administration.
Warner/Chappell administers all digital rights for In Rainbows.
From the Warner/Chappell website:
Warner/Chappell announced a partnership with rock band Radiohead to create a first-of-its-kind rights clearance strategy for the digital release of the album, In Rainbows.
From Billboard:
Radiohead and its long-time publisher Warner/Chappell Music have launched a unique "all rights" digital licensing service for the alternative rock band's new album "In Rainbows," Billboard.biz can reveal.
The music publishing giant has created a global "one stop shop" solution for the critically-acclaimed set, which will enable potential rights users worldwide to secure licenses from a single destination, effectively side-stepping the label and traditional collecting societies networks.
For the new album, Warner/Chappell will administer all digital rights, including mechanical, performing, synchronisation, lyrics, master recordings, image and likeness, and will license synch rights for both publishing and master rights for TV and film synch uses in the offline world.
Even though I'm pretty sure Radiohead has retained copyright ownership, they put Warner/Chappell in charge of administering the rights. And there's where it gets complicated. Even though Warner/Chappell is owned by Warner Music Group, they're a separate company which, as far as I can tell, isn't a RIAA or IFPI member. And since they're purely a publishing rights company you wouldn't expect them to be.
That would seem to indicate neither organization has standing to file a takedown claim.
One thing that nearly everyone seems to have missed in all the discussion of this decision is that Warner is simultaneously trying to develop non-traditional revenue streams through 360 deals with new artists. In the same conference call Bronfman complained about free music he was talking up the fact that 10% of WMG's revenue for the quarter came from these deals in the form of merchandising and concert promotion. Regardless of whether you accept the (completely untested) hypothesis that eliminating free music will result in higher track sales online, there's really no question that merchandise and concert receipts are best promoted by attracting the maximum number of listeners.
How many iTunes downloads does it take to equal the profit from a single concert ticket? And which is easier, selling 1 ticket or that number of downloads?
On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles
Re:
On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles
On the post: EMI Dumps ASCAP For Digital Licensing
Re: Re:
On the post: EMI Dumps ASCAP For Digital Licensing
Citigroup's only interest in the company is the bottom line. High handed rhetoric about the evil pirates and feel good proclamations about the label's supposed moral high ground aren't going to impress them. As the old saying goes, money talks and bullshit walks.
If they manage to sell EMI relatively soon all this could go away since the only likely buyers are other labels or people blinded by a delusion of being a 20th century label mogul. If that doesn't happen, we could be looking back in 5 years and saying Citigroup's takeover was what forced all the label executives to get off their soapboxes and make some damn money.
On the post: The First Amendment Doesn't Care If Wikileaks Is A Media Organization
The same definition of the press which would exclude Wikileaks from 1st Amendment protection would likewise exclude Benjamin Franklin. His publications had more in common with blogs and issue advocacy websites than modern newspapers. That, in and of itself, tells me it's a faulty definition. What freedom of the press is supposed to mean is freedom of publication. It refers not to a privileged group of people and organizations, but literally to a printing press, which was synonymous with publication when the US Constitution was written.
By extension, any prosecution of Julian Assange for assisting in leaking secret information while allowing newspapers, television broadcasters, and the like to publish classified information they've collected by interviewing government officials without similar action amounts to granting special legal status to The Press which was never intended by the Founding Fathers.
Whether the government has the right to take action over the publication of a particular state secret is something we should certainly discuss and debate. But any answer which relies on whether it was a media outlet or journalist who did the publishing has no legitimate constitutional basis. Likewise, if it was a crime for Wikileaks to assist in leaking US government secrets, it's ridiculous to say mainstream media outlets shouldn't be prosecuted for convincing government officials to leak other secrets.
Sadly, it's primarily The Press themselves I blame for our modern misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. More than anyone else, they are responsible for the myth that a handful of words in the middle of an amendment enumerating the rights of the people are actually meant only to apply to them, and not to the public at large. They are the first to declare that an individual who isn't part of their fraternity isn't afforded the same protection they enjoy under the 1st Amendment and the last to criticize journalist shield laws which apply only to them. The fact is, there are no rights of The Press enumerated in the Constitution. Only rights of the people which also extend to The Press.
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
As to securing routers, as Mike already pointed out, there are legitimate reasons for leaving them unsecured. There is no requirement not to, nor is there a legal doctrine which makes you responsible for the activities of people who use your unsecured connection.
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
It was also caused by law enforcement's failure to properly investigate. If you're not aware that unsecured (or as good as unsecured) wireless networks are common place, you don't know enough to be conducting this sort of investigation. Failing to look into such a possibility before making accusations this serious is irresponsible regardless of whether a SWAT team is involved or not. It's networking 101.
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router
Re: Re: Re: Headline a bit misleading
On the post: Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Gun-Toting Robber
Re: Re: Re: Abdication or responsibility and victim mentality
Where did you get the idea they did it to protect Walmart?
>We can't all just take the law into our own hands.
If someone is threatening to shoot you, yes you can. It's called self defense, and just as the name implies it's something you do yourself. In fact there are lots of times it's completely acceptable to take the law into your own hands. Just because something is "the law" doesn't automatically mean only law enforcement can deal with it, or even that its law enforcement's responsibility at all.
>We have law enforcement for a reason.
Yes. And that reason is to catch people after they've broken the law. Although it's part of a police officer's job to stop a crime in progress when they happen across it, almost the entirety of their job is to catch people after a crime has been committed.
Furthermore, companies like Walmart don't forbid employees from stopping a robbery for the safety of employees or customers. It's to protect them from lawsuits when an employee tries to stop a crime and something goes wrong. While I suspect the odds of someone getting hurt are probably lower if you just hand over the money, if I'm the one facing that risk I'll make the decision for myself. Playing the averages is a pretty sure bet when its someone else's life being put at risk. When it's your own, you have to decide for yourself. Saying there's a single "best" way to react, regardless of circumstances, is simply ignorant.
According to the article, the employees felt they didn't have a choice. To say they were wrong without being in their place (or even bothering to educate yourself on any of the specifics apparently) is both ignorant and arrogant. In fact they appear to be saying they did it for exactly the reason you yourself say they shouldn't have. The difference is, if they make the wrong call they pay the price. If you're wrong about their situation, you don't. And neither do the corporate attorneys responsible for setting the policy that got them fired.
As you said yourself, their responsibility was to look out for themselves, not Walmart. Which means if they felt their chances of being killed were better if they jumped him, that's exactly what they should have done. And in fact that appears to be exactly what happened.
There are many circumstances under which attempting to disarm a criminal would be reasonable grounds for firing. This doesn't appear to fit into that category.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re:
Why? Did they seize some child molesters? Because all I read was about domain names and I'm pretty sure no child has ever been assaulted by a web address.
On the post: Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away
So Sony is trying to undermine themselves?
On the post: Case Study: Leah Day Brings Free To The Quilting World
On the post: Netflix's Move From DVDs To Streaming Shows The Massive Value Of First Sale Doctrine
Re: Comparing Apples to Bicycle Tires
On the post: Why Is The RIAA Sending Takedown Notices Over Music Radiohead Gave Away For Free?
Not if they're a separate company
Warner/Chappell Music is WMG's award-winning global music publishing company.
http://www.warnerchappell.com/about.jsp?currenttab=about_us
I've also found more evidence that Warner/Chappell administers digital distribution rights. Last.fm lists them as the label for In Rainbows.
http://www.last.fm/music/Radiohead/In+Rainbows
On the post: Why Is The RIAA Sending Takedown Notices Over Music Radiohead Gave Away For Free?
Re: No I'm not
On the post: Why Is The RIAA Sending Takedown Notices Over Music Radiohead Gave Away For Free?
No I'm not
From the Warner/Chappell website:
Warner/Chappell announced a partnership with rock band Radiohead to create a first-of-its-kind rights clearance strategy for the digital release of the album, In Rainbows.
http://www.warnerchappell.com/ourhistory.jsp?currenttab=about_us
From Billboard:
Radiohead and its long-time publisher Warner/Chappell Music have launched a unique "all rights" digital licensing service for the alternative rock band's new album "In Rainbows," Billboard.biz can reveal.
The music publishing giant has created a global "one stop shop" solution for the critically-acclaimed set, which will enable potential rights users worldwide to secure licenses from a single destination, effectively side-stepping the label and traditional collecting societies networks.
For the new album, Warner/Chappell will administer all digital rights, including mechanical, performing, synchronisation, lyrics, master recordings, image and likeness, and will license synch rights for both publishing and master rights for TV and film synch uses in the offline world.
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i2b2de0172fdbe913ae4cd239c685e236
On the post: Why Is The RIAA Sending Takedown Notices Over Music Radiohead Gave Away For Free?
On the post: Warner Music Shoots Self In Head; Says No More Free Streaming
Even worse than it sounds
How many iTunes downloads does it take to equal the profit from a single concert ticket? And which is easier, selling 1 ticket or that number of downloads?
Next >>