She called the task "an economic and practical hardship" for the Drug Enforcement Administration
Not sure what to make of that lie except to think that they just got bored with the case. Maybe it is just not as sexy or fun as sending guns to Mexico.
I think that not only should we as a country take care of some tort reform by implementing a Loser Pays system for lawsuits (http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/loser-pays-system-introduced-in-congress.html), but I think that maybe it is time for that same type of 'cost recovery' be implemented against Prosecutors when they try to stretch a law's meaning in order to 'get' you on something.
Too often today Prosecutors use the tactic of throwing as much crap (charges) at a person in hopes something will stick. There are tons of cases that are much more egregious than this example of Prosecutors taking a law and trying to get the courts to reinterpret it to include what is outside the law intent and spirit.
And I don't really blame them (too much) for doing so. It is how they are graded that is really at fault. Prosecutors are pretty much only graded on their conviction rate. Not whether or not it was the best use of tax payers dollars, or if the case is valid. So in their eyes a conviction is a conviction.
The Prosecutors really have no incentive in bringing only good cases to trial. Or for using the limited resources of the courts wisely. They just care about getting a conviction.
But if there was in place some form a redress for the defendants in cases where the Prosecutors are found to be acting outside a law purpose they might think twice.
The big issue I see with that is that it would create a big incentive to the Prosecutors to keep pressing a case in hopes that some court at some level will side with them.
AC, that is true of Apple, but it is also very true about just about every other tech company out there. Look at Microsoft they have not had an original product in over 20 years.
Tech companies rarely invent new products, but instead 'rent' from other companies. They kind of have to unless they come up with original ideas.
Am I defending Apple or Samsung, no. But there are real things that Apple did with the iPhone no one had before with a smartphone. Those things may not be major (like inventing cellphone technology), but they are new original creations.
This is a great example of how the people that make/rule on/enforce the laws of this country have no clue as to the true meaning of the law of unintended consequences.
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
"A negative, unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy"
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
This is a great example of how the people that make/rule on/enforce the laws of this country have no clue as to the true meaning of the law of unintended consequences.
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
"A negative, unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy"
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
This is a great example of how the people that make/rule on/enforce the laws of this country have no clue as to the true meaning of the law of unintended consequences.
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
"A negative, unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy"
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
This is a great example of how the people that make/rule on/enforce the laws of this country have no clue as to the true meaning of the law of unintended consequences.
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
"A negative, unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy"
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
When it goes in to effect I will start a business.
Where my sole purpose is to provide and scare in to buying protection from the ISP and the MPAA. I will set them up with good solid security against the bs. I will run a Internet mafia to protect people against the legal totalitarians.
The sooner they realize that the more ways they embrace new ways to sell us what we want the more money they will make and the more we will seek those ways.
The content industries believe that to maintain the value of their product they need to keep artificial restrictions and artificial high prices on their product.
In other words they fail to see the value in selling more to get more. The think that they will get more by selling at a higher price when all that does is limit the number of customers who match their thoughts about perceived value.
Seriously, this debate has been going on for so long pre-vhs days yet the content industries (and that is what we should be focusing on not the big bad wolf MPAA which could not act the way it does if the big CI's told it to stop) have not realized yet that they create a good with infinite distribution possibilities.
If you have a product that you can sell an infinite number of times with each sale costing you a nominal amount and each successive sale costing you less and less to produce the product the normal business person would work as hard as they can to sell as many as possible. Even going to the point of cutting the price below what they normally would charge for it.
Why would they do that?
Because they smart enough to know that they will never run out of product. So the more they sell the more they will make. They are also smart enough to know that not every potential customer is going to buy at the higher price. Consumers do not have infinitely deep wallets. So consumers have to decide where their money is going to get the most value. As the price comes down the perceived value that the consumer feels they are getting for their money goes up.
That is what it comes down to. Value.
I will also give a personal example. My wife and I may rent 1 movie a month from our big name TV service provider because it cost us around $6.00 to $7.00 just for the one movie. And that is usually only when neither of us feel like running to the Redbox a half mile away.
But we rent 10-12 movies a month from the Redbox. We even rent movies we don't know or have not heard about (gotten a few really bad movies that way) because we know the worst case is we are out $1.29 if it sucks and we don't finish it.
With our TV provider because of the cost it HAS to be a movie we both know is going to be good and worth the 6-7 bucks.
Perceived value is everything. So the TV provider gets $6-7 a month from us. Redbox gets $12.90-15.48 from us. So the choice for us is this, get one we might like or get 5 that are more chancy. We think we get more VALUE for our money by taking the Redbox route.
They have to prove to made that much was made which they are simply not equipped to do.
The average ID scam investigation nets money and facts but very little to show how much.
My statement was based on information I have from a 20k user breach that was not reported and therefore I can not provide details. But it did happen and I did clean it up, but I can only say that the victims lost on average $10.
On the post: DOJ Gives Up On Arguing That Violating Your Employer's Computer Use Policy Is Criminal Hacking
Re:
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
Huh?
Not sure what to make of that lie except to think that they just got bored with the case. Maybe it is just not as sexy or fun as sending guns to Mexico.
On the post: DOJ Gives Up On Arguing That Violating Your Employer's Computer Use Policy Is Criminal Hacking
Loser Pays!
Too often today Prosecutors use the tactic of throwing as much crap (charges) at a person in hopes something will stick. There are tons of cases that are much more egregious than this example of Prosecutors taking a law and trying to get the courts to reinterpret it to include what is outside the law intent and spirit.
And I don't really blame them (too much) for doing so. It is how they are graded that is really at fault. Prosecutors are pretty much only graded on their conviction rate. Not whether or not it was the best use of tax payers dollars, or if the case is valid. So in their eyes a conviction is a conviction.
The Prosecutors really have no incentive in bringing only good cases to trial. Or for using the limited resources of the courts wisely. They just care about getting a conviction.
But if there was in place some form a redress for the defendants in cases where the Prosecutors are found to be acting outside a law purpose they might think twice.
The big issue I see with that is that it would create a big incentive to the Prosecutors to keep pressing a case in hopes that some court at some level will side with them.
So catch 22.
On the post: Life Imitates Conan O'Brien As Samsung 'Opens Apple Store'
Re:
Tech companies rarely invent new products, but instead 'rent' from other companies. They kind of have to unless they come up with original ideas.
Am I defending Apple or Samsung, no. But there are real things that Apple did with the iPhone no one had before with a smartphone. Those things may not be major (like inventing cellphone technology), but they are new original creations.
The 'rubberband effect' is one example.
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Re: Damned if you, Damned if you don't
Or maybe I did to REALLY state my point.
Nope just an accident.
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
I'll provide the most apropos explanation just for reference:
Copyright law may make it is illegal to follow the requirements of the ADA. Left hand, right hand, Anyone?
IMHO If the ADA does require it then that should automatically make it fair use. Or in the case of the student the benefit out weighs the detrimental effect that the copyright holder might (huge might) experience.
On the post: Is The Six Strikes Plan Being Delayed Because ISPs Are Pushing Back Against Hollywood Demands?
When it goes in to effect I will start a business.
On the post: MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
Re:
On the post: MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
Re: Why are we still having this debate?
The content industries believe that to maintain the value of their product they need to keep artificial restrictions and artificial high prices on their product.
In other words they fail to see the value in selling more to get more. The think that they will get more by selling at a higher price when all that does is limit the number of customers who match their thoughts about perceived value.
On the post: MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
Why are we still having this debate?
If you have a product that you can sell an infinite number of times with each sale costing you a nominal amount and each successive sale costing you less and less to produce the product the normal business person would work as hard as they can to sell as many as possible. Even going to the point of cutting the price below what they normally would charge for it.
Why would they do that?
Because they smart enough to know that they will never run out of product. So the more they sell the more they will make. They are also smart enough to know that not every potential customer is going to buy at the higher price. Consumers do not have infinitely deep wallets. So consumers have to decide where their money is going to get the most value. As the price comes down the perceived value that the consumer feels they are getting for their money goes up.
That is what it comes down to. Value.
I will also give a personal example. My wife and I may rent 1 movie a month from our big name TV service provider because it cost us around $6.00 to $7.00 just for the one movie. And that is usually only when neither of us feel like running to the Redbox a half mile away.
But we rent 10-12 movies a month from the Redbox. We even rent movies we don't know or have not heard about (gotten a few really bad movies that way) because we know the worst case is we are out $1.29 if it sucks and we don't finish it.
With our TV provider because of the cost it HAS to be a movie we both know is going to be good and worth the 6-7 bucks.
Perceived value is everything. So the TV provider gets $6-7 a month from us. Redbox gets $12.90-15.48 from us. So the choice for us is this, get one we might like or get 5 that are more chancy. We think we get more VALUE for our money by taking the Redbox route.
On the post: Ad Industry Is Already Getting Ads Off Of 'Rogue' Sites; So Why Did We Need Legislation?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ad Industry Is Already Getting Ads Off Of 'Rogue' Sites; So Why Did We Need Legislation?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Tries To Downplay Its Role In The Feds' Unjustifiable Censorship Of Dajaz1
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Tries To Downplay Its Role In The Feds' Unjustifiable Censorship Of Dajaz1
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The average ID scam investigation nets money and facts but very little to show how much.
My statement was based on information I have from a 20k user breach that was not reported and therefore I can not provide details. But it did happen and I did clean it up, but I can only say that the victims lost on average $10.
On the post: A Speculative Example Of CISPA's Potential For Abuse
Re: Re: Stock traders know the truth.
On the post: Ad Industry Is Already Getting Ads Off Of 'Rogue' Sites; So Why Did We Need Legislation?
Re: Re: What exactly is a Rogue Site?
On the post: Ad Industry Is Already Getting Ads Off Of 'Rogue' Sites; So Why Did We Need Legislation?
Re: Re: Re: Wasted time
Next >>