why should we have to BUY a product to protect ourselves?
I agree. I shouldn't have to buy a bike chain, car alarm, burglar alarm, or any type of locking mechanism for my house or my car!
We pay taxes for a reason. Under the mantra of "less regulation" why should we be "forced" to pay a protection tax to a company (your local mob affiliate) for protection.
Again I agree.
I hate having to pay protection to lock manufacturers and locksmiths.
Maybe the government should introduce regulation making it illegal to enter someone's property and take stuff. Or climb into my car and drive off with it. That'd be great! And they should also employ people to enforce those laws!
Re: RE: Fitness first (alive first, fitness second)
yes, thats right the music does provide *something* to the gym experience, so does the carpet, the mats, the instructor, the mirrors, the equipment, the other people, the shop and so on.
So does the manufacturer of the mat charge for every use of that mat? What about the mirrors or other equipment?
Why is it different when a CD is purchased? Make sure they have a valid CD with the track on it for every simultaneous use of that track (e.g. playing the same track simultaneously in 2 different classes requires 2 valid CDs). Why do they have to pay every time an already purchased item, the CD, is played?
but if an author who I respected, love and admire is asking me not to use is characters, and especially not wrote them in a published novel, why not respect is whish?
That is your right and it seems quite the proper thing to do.
However, an author you might respect enough to honor his wishes I might view as a turd. Therefore I may have no respect for them and may not feel in the least compelled to respect their wishes. Which is my right.
This and many comments above about searching your bags etc are rather interesting.
Here in Australia, it is not legal for private individuals/organizations to forcibly search your person.
They can refuse you entry if you do not allow them to search your belongings, or ask you to leave if you are already inside and they ask to search your belongings (and forcibly eject you/call the police if you refuse to leave).
However, not allowing them to search your belongings is not a criminal act, it is merely a breach of contract with the remedy limited to ejecting you/not allowing you in, thus you lose the ticket, no refunds.
And considering the volume of customers going through into movie cinemas, it is simply not practical (from a cost perspective) to inspect more than a small random sampling of customers. So, put the food/drink in your bag, if they ask to inspect your bag and find these goods in there, chuck em in the bin and proceed inside (never seen anyone refused entry after agreeing to dispose of the goods). I've probably been done once in 20 years, going 5-10 times a year, and that was because I had a bottle of coke (TM) in my coat pocket on the side the usher was standing on with half the bottle sticking out. I stood there and drank the coke (TM) and chucked the empty bottle in the bin then proceeded into the cinema.
But then as part of the agreement to play that bands music, wouldn't you (as the venue) put it into some sort of contractual arrangement that gives you the right to play that bands music (in the specified venue) for an extended time? i.e. many years. Therefore if you have a pre-existing contract that allowed you that artists music for 10 years, then it doesn't matter if that artist joins some organisation like the PPCA 2 years later. And hopefully as the venue operator you'd always be on the lookout for new such artists/agreements, so that once the 10 year license is up you should already have lined up (if not already started using and been gradually reducing artist 1's playtime) a replacement set of music.
"This presupposes the purpose of copyright is to foster innovation as the primary, perhaps exclusive, goal. "
Based on the Copyright Clause of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ):
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
then I'd suggest that the presupposition you mention above is indeed accurate.
Not knowing the full details, but how long did the case go on for and how many people were involved?
Could have a law firm with 4-10 lawyers working on the case for 3-4 years, plus their expenses (travel, expert witnesses, etc etc).
Let's say 8 laywers working on average each 15 hours/week over 4 years. 15*8*52*4 = ~25000 hours. Which gives $440/hour average. Some of those could be partners ($600+ hour) or more junior lawyers ($150/hour). This doesn't even cover expenses such as travel, hotel bills, expert witnesses, document discovery, 3rd party investigators (PI's, expert witnesses, researchers) and so on. Which would probably bring the average down from $440/hour to closer to $300/hour. Of course, the actual lawyer themselves don't see that hourly figure, as the firm takes a cut of that so the lawyer would probably be lucky to see 1/2 that hourly rate. Still pretty excessive tho. But I wouldn't be complaining if someone would pay me $200-$300/hour, hell, I'd be happy with $100
Of course, if this was a 2 man law firm that worked on this for 2 years, then $11mill is a tad excessive ;)
but rather a global rule set that makes it possible for people in different countries to interact with each other without issues, in a reliable and standardized manner.
And how is TCP/IP different from this? You know, the international standard outlined in several RFCs.
Instead of my telephone number being +61 8 1234 5678 it could now be 192.168.1.10:5000.
But that code exists in the first place because those who contribute to it contribute under the expectations that its terms will be followed. Otherwise that code may not even exist and those who stay away from it won't be able to contribute to it regardless.
I think you are missig the point entirely.
Many of the regular contributors to a project do so because they want to, not because they are forced to. And if the 'forced' cotribution requirement was removed, those people would still be contributing.
For example, lets say OGRE has 10000 users of the software. Say there are 50 regular cotributors, and anoher 250 occasional contibutors. Of those, 30 regular do so because they 'have' to, and 150 of the occasional also only do it beause they 'have' to.
If we remove the forced contribution, make it entirely vountary, and due to that OGRE now has 100000 users of that software. Well, we have now lost the 30 forced regular and 150 forced occasional contributors. But now we have increased by 10 times (the article points out that the percentages are fairly constant), no, lets be pessimistic and say a 10x increase in users only triples our voluntary contributors, well we now ave 60 regular and 300 occasional contributors. So we've gained 40 regular voluntary contributors and lost 30 forced ones for a net gain of 10 regular contributors. That's an overall plus isn't it?
Sure, you now have a huge numer of freeloaders. But whats better? is 100 @ 100% return better or worse than 1000000 @ 1% return?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Size of the Settlement was Punitive?
I may be wrong, but i thought the point of civil proceedings was compensation. Isn't punishment the responsibility of criminal courts? As such, punishment is not a factor in the amount awarded.
At least one of the electric car owners notes that he approached the city about getting a license, but he was denied ... the loophole is that the regulations only apply to hired transportation. If the transportation itself is "free" then there are no regulations.
At least one of the electric car owners notes that he approached the city about getting a license, but he was denied ... the loophole is that the regulations only apply to hired transportation. If the transportation itself is "free" then there are no regulations.
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Unexplored Issues
I agree. I shouldn't have to buy a bike chain, car alarm, burglar alarm, or any type of locking mechanism for my house or my car!
Again I agree.
I hate having to pay protection to lock manufacturers and locksmiths.
Maybe the government should introduce regulation making it illegal to enter someone's property and take stuff. Or climb into my car and drive off with it. That'd be great! And they should also employ people to enforce those laws!
On the post: Australian Gyms Dumping Pop Music After Massive Increase In Royalty Rates
Re: RE: Fitness first (alive first, fitness second)
So does the manufacturer of the mat charge for every use of that mat? What about the mirrors or other equipment?
Why is it different when a CD is purchased? Make sure they have a valid CD with the track on it for every simultaneous use of that track (e.g. playing the same track simultaneously in 2 different classes requires 2 valid CDs). Why do they have to pay every time an already purchased item, the CD, is played?
On the post: Some Fiction About Fan Fiction
Re:
That is your right and it seems quite the proper thing to do.
However, an author you might respect enough to honor his wishes I might view as a turd. Therefore I may have no respect for them and may not feel in the least compelled to respect their wishes. Which is my right.
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Brags About How Awesome The Movie Business Is; Right After It Claims File Sharing Is Destroying The Industry
Re: Re: Re: Best year ever is deceptive...
This and many comments above about searching your bags etc are rather interesting.
Here in Australia, it is not legal for private individuals/organizations to forcibly search your person.
They can refuse you entry if you do not allow them to search your belongings, or ask you to leave if you are already inside and they ask to search your belongings (and forcibly eject you/call the police if you refuse to leave).
However, not allowing them to search your belongings is not a criminal act, it is merely a breach of contract with the remedy limited to ejecting you/not allowing you in, thus you lose the ticket, no refunds. And considering the volume of customers going through into movie cinemas, it is simply not practical (from a cost perspective) to inspect more than a small random sampling of customers. So, put the food/drink in your bag, if they ask to inspect your bag and find these goods in there, chuck em in the bin and proceed inside (never seen anyone refused entry after agreeing to dispose of the goods). I've probably been done once in 20 years, going 5-10 times a year, and that was because I had a bottle of coke (TM) in my coat pocket on the side the usher was standing on with half the bottle sticking out. I stood there and drank the coke (TM) and chucked the empty bottle in the bin then proceeded into the cinema.
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re:
On the post: Massively Increasing Music Licensing Fees For Clubs Down Under Massively Backfires
Re:
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re:
Based on the Copyright Clause of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ):
then I'd suggest that the presupposition you mention above is indeed accurate.
On the post: Patent Holder Sues McAfee, Gets $25 Million... But May End Up Losing $5 Million Due To Everyone It Has To Pay Off [Update]
Re:
Could have a law firm with 4-10 lawyers working on the case for 3-4 years, plus their expenses (travel, expert witnesses, etc etc).
Let's say 8 laywers working on average each 15 hours/week over 4 years. 15*8*52*4 = ~25000 hours. Which gives $440/hour average. Some of those could be partners ($600+ hour) or more junior lawyers ($150/hour). This doesn't even cover expenses such as travel, hotel bills, expert witnesses, document discovery, 3rd party investigators (PI's, expert witnesses, researchers) and so on. Which would probably bring the average down from $440/hour to closer to $300/hour. Of course, the actual lawyer themselves don't see that hourly figure, as the firm takes a cut of that so the lawyer would probably be lucky to see 1/2 that hourly rate. Still pretty excessive tho. But I wouldn't be complaining if someone would pay me $200-$300/hour, hell, I'd be happy with $100
Of course, if this was a 2 man law firm that worked on this for 2 years, then $11mill is a tad excessive ;)
On the post: Recognizing That Voice Is Just Data (Or How Google Voice Could Be Disruptive)
Re: Re: Re:
And how is TCP/IP different from this? You know, the international standard outlined in several RFCs.
Instead of my telephone number being +61 8 1234 5678 it could now be 192.168.1.10:5000.
On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times
Re: Re: Re: This Article is Nonsense
I think you are missig the point entirely.
Many of the regular contributors to a project do so because they want to, not because they are forced to. And if the 'forced' cotribution requirement was removed, those people would still be contributing.
For example, lets say OGRE has 10000 users of the software. Say there are 50 regular cotributors, and anoher 250 occasional contibutors. Of those, 30 regular do so because they 'have' to, and 150 of the occasional also only do it beause they 'have' to.
If we remove the forced contribution, make it entirely vountary, and due to that OGRE now has 100000 users of that software. Well, we have now lost the 30 forced regular and 150 forced occasional contributors. But now we have increased by 10 times (the article points out that the percentages are fairly constant), no, lets be pessimistic and say a 10x increase in users only triples our voluntary contributors, well we now ave 60 regular and 300 occasional contributors. So we've gained 40 regular voluntary contributors and lost 30 forced ones for a net gain of 10 regular contributors. That's an overall plus isn't it?
Sure, you now have a huge numer of freeloaders. But whats better? is 100 @ 100% return better or worse than 1000000 @ 1% return?
On the post: Ralph Lauren And Its Lawyers Discover The Streisand Effect On Bogus DMCA Takedown
Re:
Which makes the lawyer more money?
then dealing with the responses and and further letters and other fallout?
Answer that question and I think you'll have why so many bogus DMCA takedowns get sent out.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re:
On the post: Fact Checking? Reporter Claims It Costs $27 To Use The Pirate Bay
Re:
I've known builers who have a sense of humour and named their building company "bodgy" or words to that effect, because they have a sense of humour.
I know someone who named a business "beaver", and they aren't talking about the animal. Doea it make them porn obsessed?
On the post: Jammie Thomas Not Willing To Settle Yet... Acccording To The RIAA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Size of the Settlement was Punitive?
On the post: Cab Drivers Angry About Having To Compete With Free As Well
Re:
i.e. you don't need a taxicab license.
On the post: Cab Drivers Angry About Having To Compete With Free As Well
Re: