The copyright owner charges $1,500 per performance license for that song.
But since the financial bligation ncurred that way would be a debt, you could offer payment in the form of 150,000 pennies. Refusing a legal tender payment of a debt discharges the debt in the amount of the offered legal tender payment..
The copyright maximalist lobby used the same tactics the anti-gun lobby is using today: take tiny steps that don't seem to advance your cause much, but in total get you to your goal so slowly no one notices.
And it works. Just look at the copyright MAFIAA, who have managed to completely reverse the purpose of copyright law, to the extent their own victims will defend them!
So what? No two people will ever honestly agree on what makes a given thing art. This is why the constitution protects artistic expression -- if you had to justify your art to 100% of the population for it to be art, there wouldn't ever be ANY art.
Even if 100% of the population besides the artist hates it, that's still not valid grounds to declare something to not be artistic expression.
Nobody ever needed a heavily protected right to say, do or depict exactly what everybody likes, after all.
The only natural laws are the right to fight to the death over resources and winner takes all. If a law is truly a natural one then you can observe two wild animals in a dispute over resources obeying it.
Every law other than that one is as artificial as any other. It's funny how people like to claim the right to ignore all but 'natural' laws -- and they always define laws that inconvenience them as not being 'natural' somehow.
Oddly enough, I've never seen two packs of wild dogs don three-piece suits and sue eachother over ownership of a dead cow, have you?
If simply discussing hacking is the same as actually doing it, then the DOJ would be unable to hold briefings or meetings internally to discuss hacking countermeasures without running afoul of the law...not that they'd ever hold themselves to the standards they apply to everyone else.
This whole 'prosecute the messenger' thing makes perfect sense when you consider that most companies are run by bureaucrats not engineers.
To an engineer, the objective is to build the best whatever possible. When someone points out a flaw, that person is a hero because then the engineer can fix the problem and make their product better.
To a bureaucrat, the objective is to cover his ass. Problems don't exist until someone reports them; In effect, the person reporting the problem didn't discover it, they created it where it did not exist before. And worse, the person it is reported to is now an accomplice to creating the problem unless they bury it so deep it will never be heard from again.
Given that very few engineers are the heads of companies, you get the absurdity playing itself out over and over, where companies go on the attack against anyone who points out a problem in one of their products or systems.
> In fact, Cogill notes that once things got going, the > situation was basically the DOJ trying to figure out how > to extricate themselves from the disaster they'd gotten > themselves into by buying the bullshit story the RIAA > gave them.
Last time I checked, telling a federal agent something untrue out of sheer faulty memory is a serious crime.
So how is it that what is a conspiracy in all but name for tens or even hundreds of people to lie to dozens of federal agents doesn't result in even a single criminal charge?
Re: Re: Nice comparison of apples, oranges, and random rocks.
Garbage collection is more necessary to civilization than law enforcement -- you can scare off a mugger with a pistol, but just try preventing a plague with one.
Garbage collection is also several times more dangerous than police work. If police deserve to be excused from obeying laws or to receive special praise because of the danger and necessity of their job, then garbage collectors deserve it more.
When a private citizen applies cop logic and acts accordingly, that citizen winds up charged with at least manslaughter because they are held strictly to the letter of the law.
But cops have at least one layer of bureaucracy between them and the courts and prosecutors almost never ignore the findings of the review board, so cops get judged not guilty by their fellow cops -- and never see the inside of a courtroom for what would be manslaughter or even murder if anyone else did it.
And this despite the fact that a cop can use deadly force when threatened with deadly force because s/he is a citizen, not because s/he is a cop!
Individuals and corporations are required by law to obey subpoenas and search warrants. What do you suppose would happen to someone who cited the mosaic theory as a reason why they really can't comply with the government?
Private citizens have not sworn an oath to uphold the law, are not entrusted with vast resources or a near-monopoly on use of force. So why is it that people who do have or have done all of those things get a free pass on breaking the law, when anyone else would get their compliance with the law enforced by a SWAT team?
Our republic is a representative democracy. We elect people to office to represent our interests and they act on our behalf.
If they fail to act on our behalf, or were lying during their campaign to get votes they wouldn't get if they told the truth (Obama is about the most famous example of both currently in office) then our system will result in those votes they no longer qualify for to another candidate, and remove them from office at the next election (or sooner, in the case of recall elections and impeachment). This is also why we have term limits on high offices -- so that no one can become elected for life.
But if We the People are not allowed to know what our representatives are doing in our names, we can't make an informed decision on who to vote for. Voting is supposed to be how the People control our own government, not how we rubber stamp acts of government we're not allowed to read.