But would this tax be based on where the retailer is located (For Amazon, that would be Washington) or the distribution facility where the product is shipped from (Texas in this example)?
Seems to me that in either case, the smart on-line retailers will relocate those functions to states with no sales tax (Hello Delaware and Oregon) to avoid the hassle altogether.
No available means not available. This album was available.
But not in the format that was convenient for the customer in his country. It's asinine to make it available in different formats for different countries.
There are plenty of movies still available on VHS that I can't get on DVD, but I sure as hell wouldn't buy them.
If cop catches you speeding, are you innocent till you get a trial?
Show me where it says there must be a trial for this.
Um. yes you are. You have an opportunity to go to court to dispute the ticket. You are not actually guitly of speeding until you either plead guilty and pay the ticket or are found guilty by a judge in court.
You have either never got a ticket, or have never actually read the ticket.
That is the biggest lie, almost everything made is available in a saleable form. It might not be today (because the movie isn't released yet on DVD or the album is not yet released), but those problems have more to do with your self-entitlement issues, that think you should be able to have everything right now, no matter what other issues it causes.
Really? Please point me to a the place where I can legally purchase ebook versions of Harry Potter or Robert Ludlum. Oh, and Dr Who, and the original versions of WKRP (not the shitty edits), or how about Gerhard Husch's fabulous recordings of the Schubert song cycles. Those are just off the top of my head, if I actually spent another 10 minutes thinking I could come up with several hundred examples. The only things made available are those things your corporate overlords deem worthy of consumption by us mere mortals. Until I can actually find legal versions of the things I want, I will find alternative ones if they're available.
The things it promotes are COICA and ACTA. Pure and simple its advertising aimed at the politicians and justification for what they are doing.
I can see this backfiring on them though. If they have been so successful in shutting down hundreds of (albeit insignificant) sites without these laws, why are they necessary? They're already successfully shutting them down.
Of course their rebuttal is that the process takes too long, but hey, so does carrying out a death penalty...
So reading a little bit more here http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110119p2a00m0na011000c.html it appears that this ruling only applies to a commercial entity attempting to do this.
From the article: The ruling on Jan. 18 does not suggest that the transmission of programs from one individual to another is illegal.
Of course they didn't actually read them. Those cables were above their classification and their work computers were programmed to taze them if they even thought about Wikileaks.
Apples and oranges. Google merely indexes sites. They do not actively go to every link and hand code them into their engine.
Links on a blog are intentionally placed there by a person, who still may or may not know if they're legal (and remember 'legal' is relative to jurisdiction...), but a computer algorithm has no way of knowing that. Remember that Google pulled out of China for reasons very similar to this.
Like Blockbuster and Best Buy, who have both done SO well?
The product is the marriage of the content with the ease of use of the delivery system. Netflix has succeeded IN SPITE of the content, not BECAUSE of it.
Just think about it like this, as a taxpayer we all own some of the greatest history and creativity of this modern world. It is as much yours as it is mine.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! The copyright still belongs to UMG, so the LOC can only release the recordings to the public with UMG's permission. We the taxpayers are footing the bill for storage
Not really. During prohibition, folks could make their own booze for private consumption legally. The basic premise is the same though.
IMHO, most piracy results from the lack of legal availability the content. I will admit to having donned an eyepatch on a few occasions when looking for content that simply isn't available anywhere else but in pirated form (Harry Potter ebooks, for example).
On the post: While Texas Politicians Claim $600 Million 'Lost' In Uncollected Online Sales Tax... It Means $600 Million Texans Saved
Re:
Seems to me that in either case, the smart on-line retailers will relocate those functions to states with no sales tax (Hello Delaware and Oregon) to avoid the hassle altogether.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re:
But not in the format that was convenient for the customer in his country. It's asinine to make it available in different formats for different countries.
There are plenty of movies still available on VHS that I can't get on DVD, but I sure as hell wouldn't buy them.
On the post: Music Publisher Discovers A Song In Its Catalog Has Been Heavily Sampled For Decades... Sues Everyone
Re: Re:
Ah, but it's only infringement when someone else does it to them. See how that works?
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Show me where it says there must be a trial for this.
Um. yes you are. You have an opportunity to go to court to dispute the ticket. You are not actually guitly of speeding until you either plead guilty and pay the ticket or are found guilty by a judge in court.
You have either never got a ticket, or have never actually read the ticket.
On the post: European Commission Sued By European Parliament Member Because Of ACTA Secrecy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawsuit vs ACTA
Really? Please point me to a the place where I can legally purchase ebook versions of Harry Potter or Robert Ludlum. Oh, and Dr Who, and the original versions of WKRP (not the shitty edits), or how about Gerhard Husch's fabulous recordings of the Schubert song cycles. Those are just off the top of my head, if I actually spent another 10 minutes thinking I could come up with several hundred examples. The only things made available are those things your corporate overlords deem worthy of consumption by us mere mortals. Until I can actually find legal versions of the things I want, I will find alternative ones if they're available.
On the post: If The MPAA Takes Down A Dozen Torrent Sites, And No One Notices, Did They Really Exist?
Re: Re: Re:
I can see this backfiring on them though. If they have been so successful in shutting down hundreds of (albeit insignificant) sites without these laws, why are they necessary? They're already successfully shutting them down.
Of course their rebuttal is that the process takes too long, but hey, so does carrying out a death penalty...
On the post: If The MPAA Takes Down A Dozen Torrent Sites, And No One Notices, Did They Really Exist?
Re:
And this is proof that the larger ones should be shut down why? I'm a relatively intelligent person and I can't see the logic in that statement.
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposing Legislation Requiring Warrants For Law Enforcement To Get Device Location Info
Re: Trap is set...
"There must be more to this story that Mike isn't reporting"
On the post: Japanese Court Says That Place Shifting TV Overseas Is Infringing
Even more ridiculous
From the article:
The ruling on Jan. 18 does not suggest that the transmission of programs from one individual to another is illegal.
On the post: US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort
Re: Because we actually read them.
/obvious sarc
On the post: Google Fighting Spanish Law Requiring It To Remove Links Based On Privacy Claims
Re: i know it's a can of worms but...
Links on a blog are intentionally placed there by a person, who still may or may not know if they're legal (and remember 'legal' is relative to jurisdiction...), but a computer algorithm has no way of knowing that. Remember that Google pulled out of China for reasons very similar to this.
On the post: Will Hollywood Kill The Golden Goose By Squeezing Netflix Dry?
Re:
The product is the marriage of the content with the ease of use of the delivery system. Netflix has succeeded IN SPITE of the content, not BECAUSE of it.
On the post: Universal Music Donates Master Recordings To Library Of Congress... But Keeps The Copyright
Re:
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! The copyright still belongs to UMG, so the LOC can only release the recordings to the public with UMG's permission. We the taxpayers are footing the bill for storage
On the post: J&J Sued For Trying To Avoid Recall By Sending People To Buy Up Defective Motrin
There, FTFY
On the post: 82-Year-Old Cancer Survivor Demands Apology From Airport Security Over Screening
Re: Re: The Goal is Not Safety
On the post: So Who Else Did The Government Demand Info From In The Wikileaks Investigation?
Re:
FTFY
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
IMHO, most piracy results from the lack of legal availability the content. I will admit to having donned an eyepatch on a few occasions when looking for content that simply isn't available anywhere else but in pirated form (Harry Potter ebooks, for example).
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good to know, Mr. Music Man.
I think you meant 4th Amendment. :)
Next >>