I always thought the original argument was dead wrong anyway given that most (all?) "professional" music these days is made by recording each small piece several times and putting the best pieces together for the final product.
Doing a remix live just finishes cremating the body of that old and tired myth.
This is even worse than being confused or misinformed. That is a problem that could easily be remedied in a couple hours. This is our elected representatives not caring at all about the voice of their constituents, Leaving it up to staffers to send out the most fitting form letter as a response to the 'little people'.
Of course the real problem is the people. Us. These pompous windbags will keep on going just like they have for decades because we keep putting them back in office. The real solution would be to elect a new representative each voting term until things start to change. Clear them all out and start fresh. It would take about six year to get a whole new set, but that would probably be the best thing this country has had happen to it in decades.
Of course the chances of that happening are about a low as the chance of these politicians personally reading all the bills they vote on.
I'm not Mike, but here's my problem with these data cap policies.
ISP X sells me a data plan that (lets say) promises 6Mb/s down max (we'll ignore the up). They then put a cap of 250MB a month on it. The justification for the cap is to manage network traffic.
The cap does not manage network traffic. I can still saturate my connection and put a heavy load on the network. I may not be able to do it constantly for the whole month, but I could probably do it during all peak times.
If they really wanted to manage their network they wouldn't oversell their network speeds (because that is what they are doing). They want to advertise big numbers for download speed, but they don't want to actually build a network that can support that speed for all their users.
Additionally most of these ISP's also offer TV packages. They see the threat of online video to their TV packages and want to get in front of that demand by setting caps that are "reasonable" now, but will quickly become very limiting.
Finally the only reason these companies are capable of this behavior is because they have essentially been granted government backed monopolies. The lack of competition in this area allows them to pull in the bucks without fighting for the customers.
My personal solution would be for some situation in which the 'tubes' were available to any company (similar to landline phones). I might even be for a state owned infrastructure similar to the roads over which various ISP's could supply service. But really anything that drops the barriers to entry and allows competition.
He completely deserved it, the damn dirty pirate. He even admitted to being a filthy little pirate. Thief trying to get things that he's not allowed to watch. If he wanted that UK show he should have bought himself a plane ticket (and maybe some lube to go with it).
See! It's only pirates (and maybe terrorists, but they're really the same) that run into these problems.
They're not undetectable. It's actually not that hard for an expert to be able to tell there is another encrypted volume (although I think they must get into the first encrypted volume to do so). But the existence of a volume isn't immediately visible.
If this were to go through a competent computer forensic guy (what the hell are they called?) could get into the first encrypted volume, discover the existence of the other encrypted volume and go back to force the user to proved access to it as well.
The reason for this is that encrypted volumes have very high entropy that is not generally found under other circumstances.
I have to think that somebody told this judge that 802.11a/b/g/n devices all work by sending and receiving radio waves. That they are, by definition, radio communication devices. Did he simply choose to ignore this information, or did somebody (coughlaywercough) spend enough time telling him that radio isn't really radio?
Basically the GPL grants me distribution rights. It doesn't seem to require me to make modifications. From the GPL:
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
That seems to be granting me distribution rights. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer so I'm assuming there is a flaw in my logic somewhere.
That's not quite right. Make a fork of Linux (actually just download Linux) and you have been granted distribution, reproduction, and possibly other rights that are lined out in copyright law.
That makes me wonder... If somebody is infringing on the Linux kernel copyright (as an example) would anybody who has downloaded the kernel source code have standing to sue? Certainly anybody with a fork would have standing. In theory it would seem that violating the GPL (as an example) would open you up to suit from just about anybody.
I see the potential for a great new business model.
Setup a service (such as dar.fm) that will attract the *AA lawyers under a limited liability company that has little to no assets.
Gain popularity and wait for lawsuit.
When lawsuit hits do what you can to delay while planning on bankruptcy for that LLC
At the same time setup a new LLC, does the same service, offer users of previous LLC to 'freely migrate their data'.
... wait for lawsuit
Repeat until the *AA can't even keep track of who their suing and run out of money.