You say defeatist, I say realist. Someone who actually understands the world he lives in, instead of trying to make the world the way he sees it in his dreams. It might be defeatist if he were defeated, but it sounds very much like he's leading the race, no where near defeated.
Except that the risk of getting caught is greater if you actually grab physical goods, because someone will notice them missing. If you are simply copying digital bytes, the chances of getting caught are less...
"I know the average jury member might not be a scholar or wiz, but I don't think the instructions say that. It's totally within the instructions to award $750 per recording."
Re-read the instructions. It says the normal damages can be between $750 and $30,000, but that for WILLFUL infringement (which is apparently worse), of which this is a case, the damages can be up to $150,000. Basically, just like Mike said, telling them that this type of infringement is worse than a $30,000 fine, and can have up to $150,000....so you should pick a number between the two.
"Without viewers of child porn there'd be no industry."
Just like without potheads, there'd be no market for marijuana right? So let's throw all of them in jail... how's that working out??
The last thing i want to do is imply that this type of behavior is alright, because it is not. But, let's not set up a system where a kid can snap a picture of themselves and use it as a 'get rich quick' scheme. It's well documented that children don't think about long term consequences, or about lives they might be ruining with their actions. This is part of the reason they need parental supervision until they reach a mostly appropriate age.
Offenders should be punished to the fullest, so that victims can get their justice. Victims should absolutely NOT get rewards...that's flat out an incentive to become a 'victim'.
And to think, I was almost ready to buy the Rosetta Stone cd's to brush up on the French that I've lost since college... Unfortunately, I can't support a company that can't see past the dollar $ign$ in their eyes, and won't look at the bigger picture.
It's too bad, because I'd heard they were really good. I wonder if Google is going to start offering something similar so I can get it from them instead...
We adhere to 'rule of law' over 'mob rule' because the 'mob' is collectively stupid and easily manipulated.
For each collective 'few' you can think of, the 'many' that would balance it out is not the same.
Also to be considered, is that the 'many' can be comprised of a number of the 'few', and that the net negative effect on either party contributes to the overall benefit in the equation.
The difference, subtle though it may be, is that Scientists call it a THEORY, until it is proven wrong. It does not become fact, ever really, but is only upgraded to a 'law' or generally accepted as a rule after many scientists have run their own tests on it.
Science WELCOMES and ENCOURAGES criticism and questioning.
Religion shuns it, and will try to make you look like the devil if you if you don't believe it.
"They can't keep everything secret, unless SEC rules change, and last I heard the Fed was putting pressure on the SEC to enact MORE rules & disclosure, not less."
This whole case is about the corporation putting up a fight to go in the other direction. Stop making it sound like we're trying to strip them of what they have, when in reality, we're simply trying to keep them in check and not give them more rights than they deserve.
It's more than a little sensationalist and extreme to try and make it sound like we're arguing against any sort of protections for corporations. Corporations do deserve some protections, but it should NEVER be forgotten that absolutely and positively, the PEOPLE of the US are more important than ANY corporation, and therefore should be the number one priority when it comes to protections.
Since you seem like the type to make a crazy leap from that statement, let me clarify that I do not mean people should be completely protected....I believe there are things the government should not involve itself with. However, what is good for a corporation is not always good for the people, and in those cases, the corporation SHOULD LOSE. Corporations are made up of people, lots of them, so if AT&T the corporation has an opinion on something, it should work to try and convince the people of the company the same, and have them donate to causes. The corporation should not be allowed to donate to any causes as though they are an individual. Example of abuse: Company A wants candidate A elected because candidate A wants to enact a law that allows corporations to outsource jobs so they can save money. This would lead to higher profits, more money to go to candidate A as well as the executives of the company, but it will mean a loss of domestic jobs. Tell me why any one who works for company A would want that... But Company A has a lot more money than the individuals that work there, so if the candidate is looking over campaign donations, of course he's going to bend over for the bigger donor.
In that case, the company should have no rights to either donate to a campaign, or hide the information that they want a law enacted that would let them fire half of their expensive American workforce for cheaper foreign laborers. Fighting for people does not always mean fighting against corporations, nor does fighting against corporate rights necessarily mean we don't want private enterprise...
If they are publicly traded, doesn't the public need to know at least some of what's going on inside? Wouldn't keeping everything a secret in the company prevent the public from making informed decisions about anything, and isn't that a blatant loophole that enables these corporations to game the market for any shady intentions they may have???
And that's without even considering the fact that a single person's actions typically effect themselves, while a corporation's actions typically effect hundreds if not thousands or more. Corporations are NOT people, and it should be clear that anyone who would say they are or are deserving of the same rights, has been bought out by one.
Perhaps they'd have been justified in killing him, sure... But beating him to within an inch of his life is cruel and unusual, and there is absolutely no justification for it. Dance around it all you want.
"What the proposed legislation does attempt to do is to identify certain sites that exist for no realistic purpose other than to actively facilitate the intentional infringement of works protected under copyright law."
Nice try, but I think you're pretty transparent...
It's been made clear that this legislation isn't about identifying anything, but about creating a vague, broad, general definition that can be bent at will to apply in a very large number of cases to be determined at the necessary time, depending on how much money is coming in from where.
The Pirate Bay fits both your definitions of a torrent search site that is legitimate, as well as the illegal infringing site, depending on who you ask. Which answer is right?? To me, it is a search site that is perfectly legitimate. To Hollywood, it's the epitome of evil. To the government, Hollywood is right because they have more money than me.
You are naive and/or ignorant if you don't think this act is a huge step in the wrong direction.
On the post: Computer Techs Turn Normal Virus Removal Into Multi-Million Dollar Scam
Re: Just Proves you can't buy smarts
if((!Smart) && (Rich))
{
Ripped_Off = TRUE;
}
On the post: Musician: Sell Physically Attractive Objects Worthy Of Purchase; Let Free Music Drive Success
Re:
On the post: Why The Jammie Thomas Verdicts Return Such Huge Amounts Per Song Shared: It's All About The Framing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why The Jammie Thomas Verdicts Return Such Huge Amounts Per Song Shared: It's All About The Framing
Re:
Re-read the instructions. It says the normal damages can be between $750 and $30,000, but that for WILLFUL infringement (which is apparently worse), of which this is a case, the damages can be up to $150,000. Basically, just like Mike said, telling them that this type of infringement is worse than a $30,000 fine, and can have up to $150,000....so you should pick a number between the two.
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Re: It's called a nuclear deterrent
Just like without potheads, there'd be no market for marijuana right? So let's throw all of them in jail... how's that working out??
The last thing i want to do is imply that this type of behavior is alright, because it is not. But, let's not set up a system where a kid can snap a picture of themselves and use it as a 'get rich quick' scheme. It's well documented that children don't think about long term consequences, or about lives they might be ruining with their actions. This is part of the reason they need parental supervision until they reach a mostly appropriate age.
Offenders should be punished to the fullest, so that victims can get their justice. Victims should absolutely NOT get rewards...that's flat out an incentive to become a 'victim'.
On the post: Nearly Every Company That Hates Google Piles On To Rosetta Stone Case
Rosetta stone...
It's too bad, because I'd heard they were really good. I wonder if Google is going to start offering something similar so I can get it from them instead...
On the post: $1,595 To Talk With The FCC About Telco Policy? Lobbyists Welcome; Average Citizens... Not So Much
Re: Re:
On the post: Texas Supreme Court Cites The Wisdom Of Spock On Star Trek
Re: Re: The needs of the many...
For each collective 'few' you can think of, the 'many' that would balance it out is not the same.
Also to be considered, is that the 'many' can be comprised of a number of the 'few', and that the net negative effect on either party contributes to the overall benefit in the equation.
On the post: Square Enix Sends C&D To Developer Creating OpenCarmageddon
Re: Well, yeah...
That's only what those in power would have you believe, because it's easier to control you when you don't ask questions.
On the post: Democrats Are From Cablevision & Republicans Are From Fox In Retransmission Fee Dispute?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tis the order of things...
On the post: Yankees Claiming Copyright To Block Memoir Involving 60 Year Old Letters From A Young George Steinbrenner
Re:
On the post: Gene Simmons Says Sue Your Fans, Take Their Homes; So Why Hasn't He?
Really? People still care to listen to KISS outside of that #6 'Classic Rock' preset on their radio for when every other station is on commercial??
I truly am surprised.
On the post: How Many Logical Fallacies Can You Make In A Single Column Defending A Paywall?
Re: Uh...
Free doesn't pay for those things, but neither do most of the 'major news outlets.'
On the post: Orange Alert: Potentially Habitable Planet Found
Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Science WELCOMES and ENCOURAGES criticism and questioning.
Religion shuns it, and will try to make you look like the devil if you if you don't believe it.
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To See Whether Or Not AT&T Has 'Personal Privacy' Rights
Re: Re:
This whole case is about the corporation putting up a fight to go in the other direction. Stop making it sound like we're trying to strip them of what they have, when in reality, we're simply trying to keep them in check and not give them more rights than they deserve.
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To See Whether Or Not AT&T Has 'Personal Privacy' Rights
Re: Re: No shame
Since you seem like the type to make a crazy leap from that statement, let me clarify that I do not mean people should be completely protected....I believe there are things the government should not involve itself with. However, what is good for a corporation is not always good for the people, and in those cases, the corporation SHOULD LOSE. Corporations are made up of people, lots of them, so if AT&T the corporation has an opinion on something, it should work to try and convince the people of the company the same, and have them donate to causes. The corporation should not be allowed to donate to any causes as though they are an individual. Example of abuse: Company A wants candidate A elected because candidate A wants to enact a law that allows corporations to outsource jobs so they can save money. This would lead to higher profits, more money to go to candidate A as well as the executives of the company, but it will mean a loss of domestic jobs. Tell me why any one who works for company A would want that... But Company A has a lot more money than the individuals that work there, so if the candidate is looking over campaign donations, of course he's going to bend over for the bigger donor.
In that case, the company should have no rights to either donate to a campaign, or hide the information that they want a law enacted that would let them fire half of their expensive American workforce for cheaper foreign laborers. Fighting for people does not always mean fighting against corporations, nor does fighting against corporate rights necessarily mean we don't want private enterprise...
On the post: Verizon CEO Actually Recognizes That People Want To Cut The Cord
Re: Re: New Respect
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To See Whether Or Not AT&T Has 'Personal Privacy' Rights
And that's without even considering the fact that a single person's actions typically effect themselves, while a corporation's actions typically effect hundreds if not thousands or more. Corporations are NOT people, and it should be clear that anyone who would say they are or are deserving of the same rights, has been bought out by one.
On the post: Judge Tosses Out Wiretapping Charges Against Motorcyclist Who Filmed Cop With Helmet Cam
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
Re:
Nice try, but I think you're pretty transparent...
It's been made clear that this legislation isn't about identifying anything, but about creating a vague, broad, general definition that can be bent at will to apply in a very large number of cases to be determined at the necessary time, depending on how much money is coming in from where.
The Pirate Bay fits both your definitions of a torrent search site that is legitimate, as well as the illegal infringing site, depending on who you ask. Which answer is right?? To me, it is a search site that is perfectly legitimate. To Hollywood, it's the epitome of evil. To the government, Hollywood is right because they have more money than me.
You are naive and/or ignorant if you don't think this act is a huge step in the wrong direction.
Next >>